    Vehicle Safety: Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New Car
    Assessment Program (29-APR-05, GAO-05-370).

    In 2003, 42,643 people were killed and more than 2.8 million
    people were injured in motor vehicle crashes. Efforts to reduce
    fatalities on the nation's roadways include the National Highway
    Transportation Safety Administration's (NHTSA) New Car Assessment
    Program. Under this program, NHTSA conducts vehicle crash and
    rollover tests to encourage manufacturers to make safety
    improvements to new vehicles and provide the public with
    information on the relative safety of vehicles. GAO examined (1)
    how NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program crash tests vehicles,
    rates their safety, and reports the results to the public; (2)
    how NHTSA's program compares to other programs that crash test
    vehicles and report results to the public; and (3) the impact of
    the program and opportunities to enhance its effectiveness.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-370
        ACCNO:   A22897
      TITLE:     Vehicle Safety: Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's
    New Car Assessment Program
         DATE:   04/29/2005
      SUBJECT:   Data collection
    	     Highway safety
    	     Motor vehicle safety
    	     Motor vehicle standards
    	     Reporting requirements
    	     Safety standards
    	     Statistical data
    	     Traffic accidents
    	     Transportation safety
    	     Comparative analysis
    	     Program evaluation
    	     Cost estimates
    	     NHTSA New Car Assessment Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-05-370

                     United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

                           Report to Congressional Committees

    April 2005

    VEHICLE SAFETY

           Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program

                                           a

    GAO-05-370

    [IMG]

    April 2005

    VEHICLE SAFETY

    Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program

                                     What GAO Found

    NHTSA conducts three types of tests in the New Car Assessment Program-
    full frontal and angled side crash tests and a rollover test. Each year,
    NHTSA tests new vehicles that are expected to have high sales volume, have
    been redesigned with structural changes, or have improved safety
    equipment. Based on test results, vehicles receive ratings from one to
    five stars, with five stars being the best, to indicate the vehicles'
    relative crashworthiness and which are less likely to roll over. NHTSA
    makes ratings available to the public on the Internet and through a
    brochure. Other publications, such as Consumer Reports, use NHTSA's test
    results in their safety assessments.

    Examples of NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program Tests

    GAO identified four other programs-the Insurance Institute for Highway
    Safety's program and the New Car Assessment Programs in Australia, Europe,
    and Japan-that crash test vehicles and report the results to the public.
    They share the goals of encouraging manufacturers to improve vehicle
    safety and providing safety information to consumers. These programs
    conduct different types of frontal and side crash tests, and some perform
    other tests, such as pedestrian tests, that are not conducted under the
    U.S. program. Only the U.S. program conducts a rollover test. The other
    programs measure test results differently and include more potential
    injuries to occupants in ratings. They also reported their test results
    differently, with all summarizing at least some of the scores or combining
    them into an overall crashworthiness rating to make comparisons easier.

    NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program has been successful in encouraging
    manufacturers to make safer vehicles and providing information to
    consumers. However, the program is at a crossroads where it will need to
    change to maintain its relevance. The usefulness of the current tests has
    been eroded by the growing number of larger pickups, minivans, and sport
    utility vehicles in the vehicle fleet since the program began. In
    addition, NCAP scores have increased to the point where there is little
    difference in vehicle ratings. As a result, the program provides little
    incentive for manufacturers to further improve safety, and consumers can
    see few differences among new vehicles. Opportunities to enhance the
    program include developing approaches to better measure the interaction of
    large and small vehicles and occupant protection in rollovers, rating
    technologies that help prevent crashes, and using different injury
    measures to rate the crash results. NHTSA also has opportunities to
    enhance the presentation and timeliness of the information provided to
    consumers.

                     United States Government Accountability Office

    Contents

      Letter

    Results in Brief
    Background
    NCAP Crash Tests Vehicles, Rates Their Safety, and Reports the

    Results to the Public U.S. NCAP Differs from Other Crash Programs in
    Testing, Rating, Reporting, and Government Involvement NCAP Has
    Contributed to Making Vehicles Safer, but Changes are

    Needed to Maintain Its Relevance Conclusions Recommendations for Executive
    Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    1 3 6

    9

    20

    37 58 58 59

    Appendixes

         Appendix I: Appendix II: Appendix III: Appendix IV: Appendix V: Appendix
                                    VI: Appendix VII: Appendix VIII: Appendix IX:

    Scope and Methodology
    Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings
    Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating
    Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
    Australian New Car Assessment Program
    European New Car Assessment Programme
    Japan New Car Assessment Program
    Different Types of Tests Used by the Programs
    GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contacts Acknowledgments

                                           62

                                           67

                                           74

                                           81

                                           87

                                           95

    103

    112

    115 115 115

    Tables	Table 1: Table 2: Table 3:

    Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8:

    List of Organizations Contacted 64
    Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 69
    Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Frontal and Side Star
    Ratings 91
    Australia NCAP Point System for the Pedestrian Test 92
    Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Pedestrian Rating 92
    Euro NCAP Pedestrian Test Assessment Criteria 98
    Euro NCAP Front and Side-Impact Star Rating System 99
    Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Pedestrian Ratings 100

                                        Contents

    Table 9: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Child Protection Star

    Ratings 100 Table 10: Japan NCAP Vehicle Types Used for Pedestrian Test
    106 Table 11: Description of Different Types of Tests Used by the

    Programs 112

    Figures Figure 1:

    Figure 2:

    Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7:

    Figure 8:

    Figure 9:

    Three Types of Tests-Frontal, Side, and Rollover-
    Conducted by NCAP
    Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side
    NCAP Tests
    Time Line of NCAP
    Full Frontal Crash Test Conducted under NCAP
    Angled Side Crash Test Conducted under NCAP
    Rollover Test Conducted under NCAP
    Frontal Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of
    Serious Injury to the Head and Chest
    Side Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of
    Serious Injury to the Chest
    Calculation of a Vehicle's Top-Heaviness

    Figure 10: Rollover Star Rating and the Corresponding Risk of Rollover

    Figure 11: Ratings for a 2004 Passenger Vehicle as It Appears on NHTSA's
    Web Site

    Figure 12: Details of Frontal, Side, and Rollover Star Ratings for a
    Passenger Vehicle as They Appear on NHTSA's Web Site

    Figure 13: Vehicle Safety Tests Conducted by Five Testing Programs

    Figure 14: Offset Frontal Crash Test

    Figure 15: Perpendicular Side Impact Crash Test

    Figure 16: Comparison of Barriers Used in the NCAPs' Side Test (left) and
    the Insurance Institute Side Test (right)

    Figure 17: Side-Impact Crash Test with SUV-like Barrier

    Figure 18: Side Pole Crash Test

    Figure 19: Head Form into Hood for the Pedestrian Test

    Figure 20: Child Restraint Test

    Figure 21: Dummy Injury Diagrams of Driver and Passenger in Frontal Test
    and Driver in Side Test

    Figure 22: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side NCAP
    Tests

    Figure 23: Frequency of Four- and Five-Star Ratings for Frontal and Side
    Crash Tests in 2004

    3

    5

    9 10 12 13

    14

    14 16

    17

    17

    18

    21 22 23

    24 25 26 28 29

    34

    38

    40

    Contents

    Figure 24: Example of Height Mismatch Between Vehicles of
    Different Type and Weight 42
    Figure 25: Example of the Damage Caused by an SUV Striking the
    Side of a Small Vehicle 44
    Figure 26: Example of Head Movement during the Insurance
    Institute Test with the SUV-like Barrier 45
    Figure 27: Example of Improved Matching of Frontal Vehicle
    Structures 47
    Figure 28: Example of Australia's NCAP Safety Rating

    Information 53
    Figure 29: Example of Japan's NCAP Safety Rating Information 54
    Figure 30: Example of NHTSA's Rollover Rating for a Pickup Truck

    with Bar Chart Showing How the Vehicle Performed
    within Its Class 55
    Figure 31: Examples of Euro NCAP Public Displays of Crash
    Vehicles 56
    Figure 32: A Crash Test Dummy Fitted with Load Sensors and

    Accelerometers 68
    Figure 33: Injury Curve for HIC 70
    Figure 34: Injury Curve for Chest G 71
    Figure 35: Probability Equation Used to Produce Star Ratings for

    Frontal Crashes 71
    Figure 36: Thoracic Trauma Index Curve 72
    Figure 37: Static Stability Factor of a Passenger Vehicle Compared

    with an SUV 75
    Figure 38: Programmable Steering Controller 76
    Figure 39: Diagram of the Dynamic Test, Showing Steering

    Parameters 77
    Figure 40: Sensors to Detect Wheel-lift 78
    Figure 41: NCAP Logistic Model Used to Determine Rollover

    Ratings 80
    Figure 42: Guidelines for Rating Occupant Compartment Intrusion

    Measured in Centimeters 83
    Figure 43: Insurance Institute Rating of a Mid-size Passenger Car 85
    Figure 44: Insurance Institute Crash Ratings Provided to Public in its

    Status Report Publication 86
    Figure 45: Example of Australian NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size
    Passenger Car 93
    Figure 46: Australian NCAP July 2004 Crash Test Update
    Brochure 94
    Figure 47: European NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size Passenger
    Car 101

    Contents

    Figure 48: Dummy Injury Diagrams of Driver and Passenger in
    Frontal Test, and Driver in Side Test 101
    Figure 49: Test Vehicle Undergoing Brake Tests Under Dry and Wet

    Conditions 105
    Figure 50: Pedestrian Head Impact Test and Target Area 106
    Figure 51: Japan NCAP Rating of a 2003 Mid-sized Passenger

    Car 109
    Figure 52: Example of Japan NCAP Detailed Full Frontal Data

    Available for a 2003 Test 109
    Figure 53: Key to Japan NCAP's Door Openability Ratings 110
    Figure 54: Key to Japan NCAP's Rescueability Ratings 110

    Contents

    Abbreviations

    AAAM Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine ADAC General
    German Automobile Association (Allegmeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club e V)

    AIS Abbreviated Injury Scale
    c.g. center of gravity
    CFR Code of Federal Regulations
    DOT Department of Transportation
    ESC Electronic Stability Control
    Euro NCAP European New Car Assessment Programme
    HIC Head Injury Criterion
    kg kilogram
    km/h kilometers per hour
    mm millimeter
    mph miles per hour
    NASVA National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims' Aid
    NBC National Broadcasting Company
    NCAP New Car Assessment Program
    NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    SID side-impact dummy
    SUV sport utility vehicle
    SSF Static Stability Factor
    TREAD Act Transportation, Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and

    Documentation Act TSRE AB Traffic Safety Research and Engineering AB TTI
    Thoracic Trauma Index

    This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
    work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
    separately.

                                        Contents

    A

    United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

    April 29, 2005

    The Honorable Christopher Bond

    Chairman

    The Honorable Patty Murray

    Ranking Member

    Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban
    Development, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United
    States Senate

    The Honorable Joe Knollenberg

    Chairman

    The Honorable John W. Olver

    Ranking Member

    Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban
    Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies

    Committee on Appropriations

    House of Representatives

    Motor vehicle travel is the primary means of transportation in the United
    States. Yet for all its advantages, deaths and injuries resulting from
    motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for all persons from
    3 through 33 years old. In 2003, 42,643 people were killed and more than
    2.8 million people were injured in motor vehicle crashes. Frontal crashes
    caused the largest portion of occupant deaths (about 41 percent), followed
    by rollovers and side impact crashes (30 percent and 22 percent,
    respectively). In addition to the loss of life, motor vehicle crashes have
    a high economic cost, which the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration (NHTSA) estimated at over $230 billion in 2000, the most
    recent year for which cost estimates were available.1

    Efforts to reduce fatality rates in motor vehicle crashes have resulted in
    some improvement. The fatality rate per 100 million miles of travel in
    2003 was at a historic low of 1.48, down from 1.75 per 100 million miles
    of travel

    1Economic costs include productivity losses, property damage, medical
    costs, rehabilitation costs, travel delay, legal and court costs,
    emergency services, insurance administration costs, and the costs to
    employers. For more information, see U.S. Department of Transportataion
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The Economic Impact of
    Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000 (Washington, D.C.: May 2002).

    in 1993. The Department of Transportation (DOT) attributes this change to
    several factors, including increased safety belt use, reduction of
    alcohol-related deaths, and vehicle safety programs, including Federal
    Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the New Car Assessment Program
    (NCAP), both run by NHTSA. Under NCAP, which began in 1978, NHTSA
    conducts frontal and side crash tests and rollover tests of new cars,
    light
    trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) and reports the results to
    the
    public. The specific goals of the program are to encourage market forces
    that prompt vehicle manufacturers to make safety improvements to new
    vehicles and provide the public with objective information on the relative
    safety performance of vehicles.

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are regulations that establish
    minimum performance levels that manufacturers must self-certify to in
    order to sell vehicles in the United States. Under the safety standards,
    NHTSA requires vehicles to pass a number of performance tests to ensure
    that the minimum safety level is met. The NCAP frontal and side crash
    tests
    are based on two of the crash tests carried out under the safety
    standards.
    However, the NCAP tests are conducted at 5 miles per hour faster so that
    the differentiation between vehicles becomes more apparent. When
    considering changes to NCAP, NHTSA generally follows the rulemaking
    process, which includes seeking informal comments on proposed changes
    before they become effective.

    The Senate Appropriations Committee Report accompanying the
    Department of Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004
    (S. 1589) directed us to conduct a study of the New Car Assessment
    Program. This report examines (1) how NHTSA's New Car Assessment
    Program tests vehicles, rates their safety, and reports the results to the
    public; (2) how NCAP compares to other programs that test vehicles and
    report results to the public; and (3) the impact NCAP has had and the
    opportunities that exist to enhance its effectiveness.

    To understand NHTSA's basis for testing and rating vehicles, we reviewed
    laws, regulations, and program documentation. We also conducted
    interviews with NHTSA officials, crash test contractors, vehicle
    manufacturers, trade associations, public interest groups, and independent
    researchers. We observed various vehicle crash tests and documented how
    the results were converted into star ratings. To document how NHTSA
    reports the results to the public, we consulted NHTSA officials, the
    Internet, and other vehicle safety information sources, such as Consumer
    Reports. To compare NHTSA's program with other crash test and rating

    programs, domestic and foreign, we interviewed officials of the Insurance
    Institute for Highway Safety and the New Car Assessment Programs of
    Australia, Europe, and Japan.2 We also interviewed vehicle safety experts
    and officials of foreign government entities, foreign vehicle
    manufacturers, and foreign consumer magazines such as Which?. To identify
    the impact of NCAP and opportunities for improvement, we analyzed changes
    in NCAP scores over time and obtained views from experts in the auto and
    insurance industries, public interest groups, and academia. We determined
    that NCAP data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
    In addition, we analyzed how other organizations tested vehicles, rated
    the crash tests, and reported their results to the public to identify
    practices from other programs that may have potential application to the
    U.S. program. We conducted our work from March 2004 through April 2005 in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Results in Brief	Under NCAP, NHTSA conducts three types of tests on
    vehicles-a full frontal crash test, a side crash test, and a rollover
    test, as shown in figure 1.3

    Figure 1: Three Types of Tests-Frontal, Side, and Rollover-Conducted by
    NCAP

    Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    2The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and
    communications organization in the United States funded by the auto
    insurance industry.

    3The rollover test is nondestructive.

    Each year, NHTSA tests a number of new vehicles that are predicted to have
    high sales volume, have been redesigned with structural changes, or have
    improved safety equipment. This practice is designed to ensure that NHTSA
    rates vehicles that consumers are buying. NHTSA develops five separate
    ratings based on the three tests and assigns one to five stars to indicate
    which vehicles are more crashworthy in frontal and side crashes and which
    vehicles are less likely to roll over. NCAP ratings, designed to help
    consumers decide which vehicle to purchase, are available to the public on
    the Internet and through the NHTSA Buying a Safer Car brochure. NCAP crash
    results are also incorporated in different vehicle safety ratings
    developed by others, such as Consumer Reports and The Car Book, both of
    which get more extensive distribution than direct NHTSA reporting.

    We identified four other programs that crash test vehicles and report the
    results to the public-the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's program
    and NCAP programs in Australia, Europe, and Japan. Like the U.S. NCAP, all
    these programs shared similar goals-providing relative safety information
    to consumers and encouraging manufacturers to improve vehicle safety. The
    three foreign NCAPs conduct different types of frontal and side crash
    tests and conduct pedestrian and child restraint systems tests that are
    not conducted under the U.S. program. The Insurance Institute also
    conducts different frontal and side crash tests than NHTSA's NCAP. Only
    the U.S. program conducts a rollover test. Each vehicle testing program
    also measures test results differently than the United States For example,
    in addition to the data provided by the crash test dummies in the
    vehicles, inspectors in other programs examine vehicles after crash tests
    to determine if there was intrusion into the passenger compartment or
    other abnormalities and adjust the test score accordingly. These other
    programs also report their testing results to the public in a different
    manner. While the U.S. NCAP reports results for each crash dummy by their
    seating locations in the crash test, all of the other programs summarize
    at least some of the scores or combined them into an overall
    crashworthiness rating in an effort to make it easier for the public to
    understand the results.

    NCAP has contributed to making vehicles safer, but the program is at a
    crossroads where it will need to change in order to maintain its
    relevance. As shown in figure 2, vehicle safety as measured by NHTSA star
    ratings has improved since the program began.

    Figure 2: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side NCAP
    Tests Side star ratings over timeFrontal star ratings over time

    Average star rating Average star rating

                                           5

                                           4

                                           3

                                           2

                                           1

                                           0

    5

    4

    3

    2

    1

    0 1984 1994 2004 1997 2000 2004

    Year Year

    Average star rating driver Average star rating passenger Source: GAO
    analysis of historical NCAP data provided by NHTSA. Note: Data include
    only the vehicles that were crash tested for each model year.

    The usefulness of the current tests has been eroded by changes in the
    vehicle fleet that have occurred since the program began. Today there are
    many more large pickups, minivans, and SUVs than existed 27 years ago, and
    this has created new safety hazards from the incompatibility between large
    and small vehicles and rollover crashes, which are not fully addressed by
    current NCAP tests. In addition, because most vehicles now receive four-or
    five-star ratings, NCAP tests provide little incentive for automakers to
    continue to improve vehicle safety and little differentiation among
    vehicle ratings for consumers. Lastly, NHTSA is upgrading its frontal and
    side crash tests in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which will
    make current NCAP tests less meaningful. For example, NHTSA is increasing
    the speed of the frontal safety standards to the same speed as the NCAP
    test, eliminating the difference between the frontal NCAP and safety
    standard tests. Opportunities to enhance the program include developing
    approaches to better measure the effects of crashes between

    large and small vehicles and occupant protection in rollovers, rating
    technologies that help prevent crashes from occurring, and using different
    measures to rate the crash results. NHTSA also has opportunities to
    enhance the timeliness of the tests and the presentation of the
    information provided to consumers.

    We are making recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation to ensure
    that NCAP maintains its relevance in improving vehicle safety and to
    enhance the presentation and timeliness of the information provided to the
    public. We received oral comments from NHTSA on a draft of this report. In
    general, NHTSA agreed with the report's findings. We are also making a
    version of this report available at www.gao.gov, which includes video
    clips of crash tests that are conducted by NHTSA and others.

    Background 	Motor vehicle crashes are complex events resulting from
    several factors, including driver behavior, the driving environment, and
    the vehicle.4 Vehicle design can affect safety through
    crashworthiness-that is, by providing occupants protection during a
    crash-and through crash avoidance-that is, by helping the driver to avoid
    a crash or recover from a driving error. Vehicle characteristics such as
    size, weight, and the type of restraint system affect crashworthiness
    because they play a large role in determining the likelihood and extent of
    occupant injury from a crash. Vehicle characteristics such as vehicle
    stability and braking performance are examples of crash avoidance features
    in that they aid the driver in preventing a crash from occurring.

    The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) was established in response to a
    requirement in the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972
    to provide consumers with a measure of the relative crashworthiness

    4Driver behavior involves the actions taken by or the condition of the
    driver of the motor

    vehicle, including speeding and violating traffic laws, as well as the
    effects of alcohol or

    drugs, inattention, decision errors, and age. The driving environment
    associated with

    crashes includes roadway design, roadside hazards, and road conditions.
    Vehicle factors

    that contribute to crashes include vehicle-related failures or design of
    the vehicle. For

    additional information on the causes of motor vehicle crashes, see GAO,
    Highway Safety:

    Research Continues on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor
    Vehicle Crashes,

    GAO-03-436 (Washington, D.C. : Mar. 31, 2003).

    of passenger vehicles.5 NCAP's goals are to improve occupant safety by
    providing market incentives for vehicle manufacturers to voluntarily
    design vehicles with improved crashworthiness and provide independent
    safety information to aid consumers in making comparative vehicle purchase
    decisions. NHTSA has pursued these goals by conducting frontal and side
    crash tests and a rollover test, assigning star ratings, and reporting the
    results to the public.6 In fiscal year 2004, NCAP conducted 85 crash tests
    and 36 rollover tests, with a budget of $7.7 million.7

    NHTSA also administers the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.8 All
    motor vehicles sold in the United States for use on the nation's highways
    must meet minimum safety requirements as required by the standards. The
    standards prescribe a minimum performance level for crashworthiness that
    vehicles must meet in a number of different crash tests. Auto
    manufacturers self-certify that their vehicles meet these minimum
    standards. To test compliance with some of these standards, NHTSA conducts
    30 miles per hour (mph) frontal impact tests and 33.5 mph side impact
    tests for belted occupants.9

    The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards tests serve as a foundation for
    NCAP testing. The test protocols for NCAP's frontal and side crash tests
    are the same as the safety standards, except that the NCAP tests are
    conducted at 5 mph faster. NHTSA's policy, although not required by law,
    has been to make changes to the safety standards before considering
    changes to NCAP.

    5Crashworthiness is defined in 49 USC S: 32301 as "the protection a
    passenger motor vehicle gives its passengers against personal injury or
    death from a motor vehicle accident." Section 49 USC S: 32302, subsection
    (a), requires the Secretary of Transportation to "maintain a program for
    developing . . . information on passenger motor vehicles['] . . .
    crashworthiness." Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to "provide to the
    public information developed under subsection (a) . . . in a simple and
    understandable form."

    6NHTSA also rates the ease of use for child safety seats under NCAP, which
    is not included in the scope of this report.

    7An additional 16 vehicles were also rated for rollover based on a
    calculation of their topheaviness.

    8The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CFR Title 49: chapter V, part
    571) were created under section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor
    Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The standards cover a broad range of safety
    concerns, from windshield wipers and brakes to crashworthiness.

    9Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208 and No. 214, for the
    frontal and side tests, respectively.

    When considering changes to NCAP, NHTSA generally follows the informal
    rulemaking process, which includes seeking comments on proposed changes.

    NCAP provides consumers with information regarding the crashworthiness of
    new cars beyond the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with
    which all vehicles sold in the United States must comply. There are no
    minimum performance levels for the NCAP tests. NHTSA tests as many
    vehicles as possible under NCAP to provide consumers with sufficient
    independent information to make vehicle comparisons. In contrast, NHTSA
    relies on auto manufacturers to self-certify compliance with the Federal
    Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and only conducts a limited number of tests
    to ensure manufacturer compliance.10

    NHTSA conducted the first NCAP crash tests in 1978 on model year 1979
    vehicles, measuring only the crashworthiness of passenger cars in frontal
    crashes. Since then, there have been a number of vehicle tests added to
    NCAP, as shown in figure 3. For model year 1983, NHTSA expanded NCAP to
    include light trucks, vans, and SUVs. In 1996, NHTSA first began the
    side-impact NCAP test for model year 1997 vehicles. NHTSA expanded the
    side-impact NCAP test to include light trucks, vans, and SUVs for model
    year 1999. NHTSA began to rate vehicles for their rollover risk beginning
    with the 2001 model year. NHTSA initially rated the risk of vehicle
    rollover by measuring the top-heaviness of a vehicle and comparing this
    measurement to the top-heaviness of vehicles involved in single-vehicle
    crashes, as reflected in crash data. As required by the November 2000
    Transportation, Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation
    (TREAD) Act, NHTSA began dynamic rollover testing on model year 2004
    vehicles to supplement the measurement of a vehicle's top-heaviness in
    determining a vehicle's rollover risk.11

    10Vehicle manufacturers face severe civil penalties, potentially expensive
    vehicle safety recalls, and potential legal liability if NHTSA's testing
    indicates that a vehicle does not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
    Standards.

    11The dynamic rollover test is a specific driving maneuver. The Static
    Stability Factor is a laboratory measurement.

    Figure 3: Time Line of NCAP

                                       NCAP adds

    Act to rollover rating

                  1972 1979a 1983a 1994a 1997a 1999a 2000 2001a 2004a

                                      Source: GAO.

    aIndicates vehicle model year.

    bNHTSA has not always used the star rating system to communicate a
    vehicle's crashworthiness as measured by NCAP. Previously, NHTSA published
    the numerical injury scores indicating the likelihood of head, chest, and
    upper leg injuries to the vehicle occupants. NHTSA devised the star rating
    system after the Senate and Conference Appropriations Reports for fiscal
    year 1992 requested that NHTSA improve methods of informing consumers of
    the comparative safety of passenger vehicles as measured by NCAP.

    NCAP Crash Tests NHTSA conducts three types of tests in NCAP: a full
    frontal crash test, an

    angled side crash test, and a rollover test.12 NCAP ratings, designed to
    aidVehicles, Rates Their consumers in deciding which vehicle to purchase,
    are available to the Safety, and Reports the public on the Internet and
    through NHTSA's Buying a Safer Car brochure. Results to the Public NCAP
    crash results are also used in developing vehicle safety ratings by

    other organizations, such as Consumer Reports and The Car Book.

    NCAP Conducts Three Tests-Full Frontal, Side, and Rollover

    Every year NHTSA tests new vehicles that are predicted to have high sales
    volume, have been redesigned with structural changes, or have improved
    safety equipment. NHTSA purchases vehicles-the base model with standard
    equipment-for frontal and side crash tests directly from dealerships
    across the country, just as the consumer would. The vehicles are provided
    to five contractors that conduct the crash tests. NCAP crash

    12According to NHTSA officials, they are conducting pilot studies to
    determine the feasibility of conducting more tests under NCAP, including a
    child seat crashworthiness sled test, rating vehicles on how well they
    protect children, braking, and lighting.

    test ratings only apply to belted occupants, as the crash test dummies
    used in NCAP tests are secured with the vehicle's safety belts. According
    to NHTSA officials, NCAP crash-test ratings are available on about 85
    percent of the new vehicles sold because ratings for some models that have
    had no significant safety or structural changes are carried over from year
    to year. For the rollover tests, which are nondestructive, NHTSA leases
    new vehicles, which are tested at one contractor location. Rollover risk
    ratings are available for about 75 percent of new vehicles sold, according
    to NHTSA officials.

    Full Frontal Crash Test	The full frontal crash test is the equivalent of
    two identical vehicles, both traveling at 35 mph, crashing into each other
    head-on.13 The test vehicle is attached to a cable and towed along a track
    at 35 mph so that the entire front end of the vehicle engages a fixed
    rigid barrier, as shown in figure 4. This type of crash test produces high
    level occupant deceleration, making this test demanding of the vehicle's
    restraint system.

                 Figure 4: Full Frontal Crash Test Conducted under NCAP

                Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    Click the following link to watch a video of a full frontal crash test
    conducted by NHTSA NCAP at 35 mph:
    http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v1.mpg

    Because the full frontal crash test is equivalent to two identical
    vehicles moving toward each other at 35 mph, the crash test results can
    only be compared to other vehicles in the same class and with a weight
    that is plus

    13See appendix VIII for a diagram of the full frontal crash test
    configuration.

    or minus 250 pounds of the test vehicle. The test protocols for the full
    frontal NCAP test are the same as the full frontal belted test in the
    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, with the exception of the test
    speed-the NCAP test is conducted at 35 mph, 5 mph faster than the standard
    test.14

    Angled Side Crash Test	The angled side crash test simulates an
    intersection collision in which one moving vehicle strikes another moving
    vehicle.15 The test vehicle is positioned such that the driver's side
    forms a 63 degree angle with the test track. On the other end of the test
    track is a chassis with a barrier also turned at a 63 degree angle.16 The
    barrier is made of a deformable material to replicate the front of another
    vehicle and is attached to a cable that tows it down a track into the test
    vehicle at 38.5 mph. Both the barrier face and the driver's side of the
    vehicle are parallel, so that the entire face of the barrier impacts the
    side of the vehicle, as shown in figure 5.

    14The higher speed creates more crash energy or power and inflicts
    potentially more damage on the vehicle and its occupants. The increased
    speed also allows differences in crashworthiness to be more readily
    observed. The difference in speed is only 5 mph faster, but the total
    kinetic energy released in a 35 mph crash is 36 percent greater than that
    released in a 30 mph crash.

    15See appendix VIII for a diagram of the angled side crash test
    configuration.

    16NHTSA performs the angled side test because accident data suggests that
    intersection or perpendicular impacts occur with two moving vehicles. To
    simulate a moving car to moving car crash, the angled or "crabbed" side
    test is used. The test simulates the striking vehicle traveling at
    approximately 34 mph and the test vehicle traveling at roughly half that
    speed-approximately 17 mph-due to the 63/27 degree configuration.

    Figure 5: Angled Side Crash Test Conducted under NCAP

                Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    Click the following link to watch a video of an angled side crash test
    conducted by NHTSA NCAP at 38.5 mph:
    http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v2.mpg

    Because all vehicles are hit with the same force by the same moving
    barrier, test results can be compared across weight classes. The barrier
    used in this test weighs approximately 3,015 pounds, and the top of the
    deformable face is approximately 32 inches from the ground. The side NCAP
    test is similar to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards test, with
    the exception that the side NCAP test is conducted at 38.5 mph, or 5 mph
    faster than the safety standard test.17

    Rollover Test	The dynamic rollover test simulates a driver making a
    high-speed collision avoidance maneuver-steering sharply in one direction,
    then sharply in the other direction-within about 1 second. NHTSA has
    focused its rollover test primarily on pickups and SUVs because cars are
    not susceptible to tipping up in this test. The rollover test is actually
    a series of four runs, two left/right tests and two right/left tests, at
    two different steering wheel angles and different speeds. Before the test,
    the vehicle is loaded to represent five passengers and a full tank of gas.
    During the test, the steering wheel is turned sharply in one direction at
    a high speed and then turned sharply in the opposite direction at a
    greater steering angle.18 The first run of each test is conducted at 35
    mph. Subsequent runs are conducted at about 40 mph, 45 mph, 47.5 mph and
    50 mph, until the vehicle fails or "tips up" as defined by test procedures
    or attains a speed of 50 mph on the last

    17The safety standard, No. 214, applies to both sides of the vehicle and
    specifies performance requirements for vehicle occupant protection in side
    crashes. NCAP side tests only apply to the driver's side of the vehicle.

    18Appendix III provides additional discussion of the basis for NHTSA's
    rollover rating.

    run of each test without tipping up. Tipping up is defined as both wheels
    on one side of the vehicle lifting off the ground more than 2 inches
    simultaneously, which most commonly occurs during the second turn, as
    exhibited in figure 6. Outriggers are attached to the vehicle to prevent
    it from tipping all the way over and injuring the test driver.

                      Figure 6: Rollover Test Conducted under NCAP

                Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    Click the following link to watch a video of a dynamic rollover test
    conducted by NHTSA NCAP at 48 mph:
    http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v3.mpg

    NHTSA Rates Vehicles by Assigning Up to Five Stars to Communicate the
    Results of Its Tests

    Frontal and Side Crashworthiness Ratings

    NHTSA separately rates the frontal, side, and rollover tests. It assigns
    one (worst) to five (best) stars to communicate the results of the three
    tests to aid consumers in their vehicle purchase decisions. Each star in
    the frontal and side ratings corresponds to a diminishing probability of a
    potentially life-threatening injury, whereas each star in the rollover
    rating corresponds to a reduced likelihood of vehicle rollover. The
    rollover rating does not represent the chance of a potentially
    life-threatening injury should a rollover crash occur.

    Frontal and side star ratings represent the chances of a person wearing a
    safety belt incurring an injury serious enough to require immediate
    hospitalization or to be life threatening in the event of a crash. Frontal
    star ratings indicate the combined chance of a serious head and chest
    injury19 to the driver and right front seat passenger, as shown in figure
    7.

    19The head and chest measurements are known as the Head Injury Criterion
    (HIC) and chest deceleration value, measured in Gs.

    Figure 7: Frontal Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of Serious
    Injury to the Head and Chest

                Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    Side star ratings indicate the chance of a serious chest injury to the
    driver and the rear seat driver's side passenger, as shown in figure 8.20
    NHTSA reports two separate star ratings for the frontal and side crash
    test, according to the occupant position.

    Figure 8: Side Star Rating and the Corresponding Chance of Serious Injury
    to the Chest

    Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    In the side and frontal test, NHTSA uses crash test dummies that represent
    an average-sized adult male. Each dummy is secured with the vehicle's

    20The forces on the dummy's lower spine and the greater of the
    accelerations of the lower and upper ribs are used in the side NCAP star
    ratings. These accelerations are averaged to produce a measurement known
    as the Thoracic Trauma Index.

    safety belts prior to the crash test.21 The dummies are affixed with
    instruments that measure the force of impact experienced in different
    parts of the body during the crash. While only forces to the head and
    chest are used to calculate the frontal star ratings, impacts to each
    dummy's neck, pelvis, legs, and feet are also measured.22 For the frontal
    rating, NHTSA calculates the chance of serious injury to the head and
    chest by linking measured forces on the dummies' heads and chests during
    the crash test to information about human injury.23 For the side rating,
    NHTSA calculates the chance of serious injury to the chest by linking
    measured forces on the dummies' ribs and lower spine during the crash test
    and information about human injury. Forces to the head and pelvis are also
    measured but are not included in side star ratings.

    Rollover Rating	NHTSA's rollover star ratings represent the propensity of
    a vehicle to roll over but do not address the probability of a severe
    injury in a rollover crash. Knowing a vehicle's propensity to roll is
    important because rollovers are the most deadly crashes. While totaling
    just over 2 percent of police reported crashes, rollovers account for
    almost one-third of all passenger vehicle occupant fatalities. The crash
    avoidance rollover rating is based primarily on the measure of a vehicle's
    top-heaviness, as shown in figure 9, and, to a lesser extent, the results
    of the dynamic test.24

    21The crash test dummies used in the frontal and side NCAP test represent
    the 50th percentile male or the average male in terms of height and
    weight. The dummy used is approximately 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighs
    approximately 170 pounds.

    22If these force measurements are sufficiently high to cause serious or
    life-threatening injury, they are reported separately as a safety concern
    but are not included in the star rating calculation. NHTSA does not report
    tibia and feet measurements as safety concerns because there are no
    agency-approved metrics for these body regions. In side impact tests,
    forces to the head are also measured, though they are not included in the
    star rating. They are also reported separately as a safety concern if
    considered high.

    23See appendix II for more information about how dummy measures and
    information about human injury are combined to develop a probability of
    injury.

    24NHTSA began rating a vehicle's risk of rollover in 2001. Rollover
    ratings between 2001 and 2003 were based on the measure of a vehicle's
    top-heaviness because NHTSA had determined that this was a good indicator
    of rollover likelihood. In 2004, NHTSA began to conduct a dynamic rollover
    test as mandated by the TREAD Act.

                   Figure 9: Calculation of a Vehicle's Top-Heaviness

    Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    aThe Static Stability Factor (SSF) is a vehicle's track width divided by
    two times its center of gravity height.

    NHTSA uses the measure of a vehicle's top-heaviness to predict the
    likelihood of a vehicle rolling over under the circumstances that occur
    most often-when a vehicle leaves the roadway and the vehicle's wheels hit
    a curb, soft shoulder, or other roadway object, causing it to roll over.
    These "tripped" rollovers account for about 95 percent of all rollover
    crashes. NHTSA's dynamic rollover test does not correspond to these types
    of rollovers because it does not involve the vehicle hitting a tripping
    mechanism, such as a curb or soft shoulder. As such, NHTSA's dynamic
    rollover test does not affect the star rating significantly, resulting in
    no more than a half-star difference in a vehicle's rollover rating. NHTSA
    primarily selects top-heavy vehicles, such as light trucks, small vans,
    and SUVs for the rollover test.25 NHTSA assigns one to five stars to
    reflect the chance of rollover, as shown in figure 10.26

    25A vehicle's Static Stability Factor ranges (SSF) from approximately 1.00
    to 1.50, with SUVs lying in the lower half and passenger cars lying in the
    upper half of that range. The lower the SSF, the more likely a rollover
    will occur. For rollover ratings, vehicles are rated using a statistical
    risk model that incorporates both the vehicle's SSF and its tip or no-tip
    result in the dynamic test. NHTSA does not always subject passenger cars
    to the dynamic test. For some passenger cars, NHTSA imputes or assigns a
    "no tip-up" if other passenger cars that are more top-heavy did not tip up
    during the dynamic test. NHTSA periodically puts vehicles with imputed
    test results through the dynamic test to verify the no tip-up assignation.

    26See appendix III for a more detailed description of the development of
    the NCAP rollover rating.

                Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    NHTSA Reports the Results to the Public Through the Internet and the
    Buying a Safer Car Brochure

    NHTSA distributes NCAP safety ratings and information about a vehicle's
    safety features through its Web site, press releases, and the Buying a
    Safer Car brochure. NHTSA primarily relies on the Web site to educate
    consumers about vehicle safety; in 2004 there were about 4.3 million
    visits to the NCAP Web site. The Web site was last redesigned in August
    2004 and provides information about crash test ratings from model year
    1990 to the present.27 To view a vehicle's ratings, users can search using
    parameters such as vehicle class, year, make, and model. Once a vehicle
    class and year are selected, the list of vehicles comes up with the star
    rating information, as shown in figure 11.

                Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    27NCAP rating information for vehicles prior to model year 1990 is
    archived and not available on the Web site. NCAP information for these
    vehicles has been converted into star ratings and is available to
    consumers upon request.

    Users can get more detailed information about the vehicle's star rating by
    selecting a specific vehicle, as shown in figure 12.

                Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    In addition to the Web site, NCAP's star ratings and a list of vehicles'
    safety features are available in the Buying a Safer Car brochure. The
    American

    Automobile Association primarily distributes the brochure, and it is also
    available at NHTSA's regional offices, state highway safety offices, and
    libraries. For vehicle model year 2004, NHTSA published 25,000 copies of
    the Buying a Safer Car brochure. For vehicle model year 2005, NHTSA
    published a first printing of the brochure in December 2004. In addition,
    it plans to print a second brochure in spring 2005. While the 2004 edition
    does not have all the test results for model year 2005, it has a large
    number of carryover vehicles from model year 2004 plus some early 2005
    tests.

    Other sources of vehicle safety information that use data from NCAP crash
    tests include Consumer Reports and The Car Book. Consumer Reports takes
    into consideration a vehicle's performance in NHTSA NCAP tests and tests
    conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (Insurance
    Institute) to determine an overall crash-protection rating. Instead of
    printing stars, Consumer Reports uses a circle rating scheme. Consumer
    Reports publishes this crash-protection rating, as well as individual
    NHTSA and Insurance Institute front and side crash test results, in its
    monthly magazine, in all of its newsstand-only new-car publications, and
    on its Web site. Consumer Reports magazine has about 4 million
    subscribers, but representatives told us they inform in excess of 13.5
    million people monthly as a result of pass-along readership. The Web site
    has an additional 1.8 million subscribers. 28

    Published annually, The Car Book provides consumers with a broad range of
    information about new vehicles, listed alphabetically by model.
    Information such as fuel economy, repair costs, and front and side crash
    tests are included in the book. The Car Book takes the NCAP raw test
    results and converts them into a numerical rating scheme, 10 being best
    and 1 being worst. In addition to the information by vehicle model, The
    Car Book also presents detailed safety information based on the safety
    features of each car and the government's rollover ratings. Since first
    being published privately for the 1983 vehicle model year, The Car Book
    has sold over 1.5 million copies.29

    28Visits to the Consumer Reports Web site include those seeking rating
    information on an array of consumer products, not just vehicle safety.

    29The Car Book was originally a government publication. It is now produced
    commercially.

    U.S. NCAP Differs from Other Crash Programs in Testing, Rating, Reporting,
    and Government Involvement

    We identified four other programs that crash test vehicles and report the
    results to the public-the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
    (Insurance Institute) program in the United States and NCAP programs in
    Australia, Europe, and Japan.30 All of the programs shared the U.S. NCAP
    goals of providing manufacturers with an incentive to produce safer
    vehicles and providing consumers with comparative safety information on
    the vehicles they plan to purchase. We found differences in the types of
    tests conducted, how the crash tests were evaluated, and how the test
    results were shared with the public. In addition, we found that each
    program had varied levels of government and industry involvement.

    Vehicle Testing Programs Conduct Different Tests

    Each of the organizations we examined conducts a variety of frontal, side,
    and other tests designed to measure various elements of vehicle safety.
    Figure 13 shows the tests performed across the U.S. NCAP and other four
    programs. (See appendixes II through VIII for additional discussion on
    each program and the tests conducted.)

    30The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and
    communications organization in the United States funded by the auto
    insurance industry.

    Test performed Test not performed

    Source: GAO analysis of crash test programs.

    aThe Insurance Institute conducts a perpendicular side-impact crash test
    with a SUV-like barrier.

    Frontal Crash Tests	The five programs we examined use two crash tests to
    represent frontal crashes-full frontal and offset crash tests. The U.S.
    and Japan NCAPs conduct full frontal tests, which involve crashing the
    test vehicle's entire front end into a solid barrier. The offset frontal
    test involves crashing the test vehicle traveling at 40 mph (64 kilometers
    per hour-km/h) into a deformable barrier with about 40 percent of the
    vehicle's overall width on the driver's side actually impacting the
    barrier, as shown in figure 14. All programs, except the U.S. NCAP,
    conduct the offset frontal test.

    Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Club.

    Note: This test is conducted on the driver side of the vehicle, whether it
    is right-hand drive or left-hand drive. In the photo shown, the driver is
    on the right side of the vehicle.

    Click the following link to watch a video of an offset frontal crash test
    conducted by Australia NCAP at 40 mph:
    http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v4.mpg

    The full frontal and offset frontal tests measure different
    characteristics of vehicle crashworthiness. The full frontal test focuses
    on measuring the ability of the vehicles' restraint systems to protect the
    occupants. The offset frontal test assesses a vehicle's structural
    integrity and its ability to manage the crash energy generated from a
    crash entirely on one side of the vehicle. Officials from the programs
    using the offset test told us they believe it is more representative of
    real world crashes because most frontal crashes involve vehicles hitting
    only a portion of their front ends.

    Side Crash Tests	Three types of side-impact tests are conducted among the
    programs we examined-the angled side test, the perpendicular side test,
    and the pole side test. Only the U.S. NCAP performs the angled side
    test.31 All of the other testing programs conduct a perpendicular side
    tests. This test involves crashing a moving deformable barrier traveling
    at about 31 mph

    (50 km/h) into a stationary vehicle at a 90 degree angle centered on the
    driver's seating position. Figure 15 illustrates how the perpendicular
    test is performed.

                                   Source: Euro NCAP.

    Note: This test is conducted on the driver side of the vehicle, whether it
    is right-hand drive or left-hand drive. In the photo shown, the driver is
    on the right side of the vehicle.

    Click the following link to watch a video of a perpendicular side impact
    crash test conducted by Euro NCAP at 31 mph:
    http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v5.mpg

    Other differences between the side tests were the height, shape, and
    weight of the barriers and the crash dummies used. For example, the U.S.
    NCAP and the three foreign programs performed their side tests using a
    moving deformable barrier with a front end simulating a passenger car,
    while the Insurance Institute's barrier simulates the front end of a
    typical pickup

    31As discussed earlier, the angled side test involves crashing a
    3,015-pound moving deformable barrier traveling at 38.5 mph into a
    standing test vehicle.

    truck or SUV. In addition, the Insurance Institute barrier weighs about
    3,300 pounds (1,500 kilograms-kg) compared to 3,015 pounds (1,367 kg) for
    the U.S. barrier and 2,095 pounds (950 kg) for the Australian, European,
    and Japanese barriers. Also, the Australia, Europe, Japan, and U.S. side
    tests used 50th percentile adult male dummies and the Insurance Institute
    used 5th percentile adult female dummies.32

    Insurance Institute officials told us they found that in serious
    real-world side-impact collisions, occupants' heads are often struck by
    intruding vehicles, especially in the side collisions involving pickup
    trucks or SUVs with high front hoods. As a result, in 2003 when they began
    their side impact test, they developed the barrier to simulate these types
    of vehicles, while using dummies that represented smaller occupants. They
    said that the test challenges the automobile industry to provide
    additional occupant protection specifically for the head region. Figure 16
    shows the difference in the size and height of the barriers, while figure
    17 shows the crash test.

    Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

    32The 50th percentile adult male dummy represents an average-sized male,
    and the 5th percentile adult female dummy represents a small female or
    12-year-old child.

    Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

    Click the following link to watch a video of a side-impact crash test with
    an SUV-like barrier conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway
    Safety at 31 mph: http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v6.mpg

    The Australia NCAP and European NCAP (Euro NCAP) also include optional
    pole side tests. The pole side test involves a side impact to a vehicle
    placed on a platform and propelled at about 29 km/h (about 18 mph) into a
    stationary cylindrical pole. The pole test is an optional extra test,
    available at the manufacturer's cost. This option is only available if a
    vehicle has head-protecting side air bags and receives the highest score
    in the side-impact test. If the vehicle performs well in the pole test,
    the vehicle can receive a higher overall score. Officials in Europe said
    this test is important, for example, because in Germany over half of the
    serious to fatal highway injuries occur when a vehicle crashes into a pole
    or a tree. The test is designed to encourage auto manufacturers to equip
    vehicles with head protection devices. Officials in Australia stated they
    are considering replacing the perpendicular side test with a pole side
    test to

    better test the increasing number of SUVs on their roadways. They said
    that SUVs are higher off the ground and heavier than most passenger cars.
    As a result, SUVs would always score higher under the current side-impact
    test because the barrier often impacts below the hip point on the dummy
    and would register little injury data. The pole test will impact all
    vehicles, including SUVs, the same way regardless of height and weight.
    NHTSA officials told us that while they have no plans at this time to
    include this test in NCAP, they plan to investigate revisions to the side
    NCAP once the pole test requirements for the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
    Standards are resolved and finalized.33 Figure 18 illustrates how the pole
    test is performed.

    Source: Euro NCAP.

    Note: This test is conducted on the driver side of the vehicle, whether it
    is right-hand drive or left-hand drive. In the photo shown, the driver is
    on the left side of the vehicle.

    Click the following link to watch a video of a side pole crash test
    conducted by Euro NCAP at about 18mph:
    http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v7.mpg

    33NHTSA has proposed a regulatory revision to its Federal Motor Vehicle
    Safety Standard 214, in which vehicles would have to meet additional
    performance criteria of a pole side test involving a vehicle traveling at
    20 mph into a rigid pole at a 75 degree angle.

    Other Safety Tests	In addition to the frontal and side crash tests, other
    safety tests are conducted in the various programs. These include vehicle
    rollover, pedestrian protection, and child restraint tests. The U.S. NCAP
    is the only program to conduct a vehicle rollover test.34 Officials of the
    other NCAPs told us they do not conduct this test because rollover has not
    been a major problem in their countries due to their smaller-sized vehicle
    fleet. However, Australian NCAP officials told us they have noted a growth
    in the size of their vehicle fleets, and they will be evaluating the
    usefulness of adding a rollover test to their programs.

    The NCAPs in Australia, Europe, and Japan also conduct pedestrian tests,
    which are used to assess the risk to pedestrians if struck by the front of
    a car. The pedestrian test involves projecting adult and child-sized dummy
    parts (such as heads) at specified areas of the front of a vehicle to
    replicate a car-to-pedestrian collision. Officials in these programs said
    they included this test because pedestrian fatalities in some of their
    countries were quite high. For example, in 2003 pedestrians accounted for
    nearly 30 percent of the annual traffic fatalities in Japan, 20 percent in
    Europe (nearly 30 percent in the United Kingdom alone), and 14 percent in
    Australia. In contrast, in the United States, approximately 5,000
    pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2003, accounting for
    13 percent of the annual traffic fatalities. Figure 19 illustrates how the
    pedestrian protection test is performed.

    34As discussed earlier, NHTSA's rollover test evaluates vehicles' rollover
    resistance using a Static Stability Factor calculation and a dynamic test
    simulating a high-speed collision avoidance maneuver.

    Source: Euro NCAP.

    Click the following link to watch a video of a pedestrian test, where a
    head form is propelled into a vehicle hood, conducted by Euro NCAP:
    http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v8.mpg

    The NCAPs in Europe and Japan also conduct child restraint tests to
    evaluate child protection, although these tests are not directly related
    to crashworthiness. In Europe, two different child-size dummies are placed
    in child seats of the auto manufacturer's choice during the frontal and
    side crash tests, as shown in figure 20. In Japan, two child-size dummies
    are placed in child seats installed in the rear passenger seats of a test
    vehicle that has been stripped down to its body frame. The test vehicle is
    placed on a sled and subjected to a shock identical to the test speed used
    in the full frontal crash test. Japan NCAP also separately assesses the
    ease of correctly using child seats. NHTSA officials told us that the U.S.
    NCAP is conducting a pilot test to determine whether or not the addition
    of child safety seats into the frontal NCAP would provide meaningful
    consumer information. NHTSA also provides ratings on child safety seat
    ease of use.

    Each vehicle testing organization used crash dummy readings as a principal
    part of its rating process.35 However, we found some differences in other
    aspects of the organizations' rating processes. For example, all programs
    except NHTSA supplement the dummy measures with inspector observations or
    measurements of the post-crash vehicles. In addition, in Europe and
    Australia, rating scores can be modified depending on the existence or
    absence of certain safety features. Further, each program except the
    Insurance Institute uses stars to convey the test results, and some
    programs combine individual ratings into summary ratings in an effort to
    make it easier for the public to understand crash test results.

    The four organizations we reviewed used more dummy measures in calculating
    a vehicle's safety rating than U.S. NCAP. The U.S. NCAP uses head and
    chest crash dummy readings in frontal crashes and chest and lower spine
    readings for side crashes, then converts them to a probability

    35Appendixes IV through VII provide details on each country's approach to
    vehicle ratings.

                                   Source: Euro NCAP.

    Vehicle Testing Programs Rate Safety Differently

    Organizations Use Different Body Region Measurements and Types of Dummies
    to Develop Ratings

    for serious injury, which in turn is converted into a star rating.36 NHTSA
    officials said they use these measures because they are the most important
    indicators of serious or fatal injury in frontal and side crashes.37 In
    addition to the U.S. NCAP measures, the Insurance Institute uses
    measurements of the neck, left leg and foot, and right leg and foot for
    its frontal crash analysis and measurements of the head, neck, pelvis, and
    left leg for its side crash analysis. Australia and Euro NCAP use the
    neck, knee, femur, pelvis, and leg and foot for frontal tests and head,
    abdomen, and pelvis for side tests. Japan uses neck, femur, and tibia
    measurements for its frontal crash analysis and head, abdomen, and pelvis
    measurements for its side crash analysis. The other organizations use some
    of these additional measures to capture what in some cases may not
    necessarily be life-threatening injuries, such as those to the victim's
    legs. As discussed earlier, the U.S. NCAP measures the impact of crashes
    on many of the same body regions but does not use them to calculate safety
    ratings.

    In addition to differences in the body areas being measured, some programs
    use different dummies in their side-impact tests. For the frontal tests,
    the U.S. NCAP and other organizations use dummies that represent an
    average-size adult male who is 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighs about 170
    pounds. While this size dummy is used by most programs for the side-impact
    tests, there are differences in the dummy types and the instrumentation it
    contains.38 In addition, in its side-impact tests, the Insurance Institute
    uses a smaller female dummy (about 5 feet tall and weighing about 110
    pounds). Insurance Institute officials said they chose this dummy because
    there is evidence that females are more at risk in side collisions. It
    hopes this test will encourage manufacturers to install side curtain air
    bags that are designed to extend low enough to protect smaller passengers.
    Although NHTSA's proposed changes to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
    Standards would add a side-impact pole test using the average-size male
    and the smaller female dummies, NHTSA officials said that at this time
    they have no plans to alter the sizes or types of crash

    36For the side crashes, dummy readings of the chest and lower spine are
    used to compute the Thoracic Trauma Index, which is used to determine the
    star rating.

    37In the proposed change to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
    side impact test, the new pole test would evaluate protection to front
    seat occupants against head, thoracic, and pelvic injuries. This would be
    the first time that head injury criteria would need to be met under the
    side standards.

    38For the side impact tests, the U.S. NCAP uses the SID-H3 dummy,
    Australia and Euro NCAPs use the EuroSID-II dummy, and Japan's NCAP uses
    the EuroSID-1.

    dummies they use but plan to investigate revisions to the side NCAP once
    the pole test requirements for the safety standards are resolved and
    finalized.

    Using Inspector Observations to Another distinction between the U.S.
    program and other programs is the

    Supplement Dummy Results

    Using a Modifier System to Adjust Scores

    use of observations to modify test results. All programs except the U.S.
    NCAP observe or measure changes to various parts of the occupant
    compartment after the frontal crash test to identify potential safety
    concerns. For example, the Euro NCAP measures the intrusion of the
    steering column and lower leg area into the occupant compartment. Euro
    NCAP officials noted that while an intrusion may not have affected the
    dummy in the test, the potential for serious injury to vehicle occupants
    in real-world crashes causes them to lower the safety rating. Japan's NCAP
    also measures intrusion into the passenger compartment, but rather than
    relying on observation, Japan has established fixed measures that if
    exceeded will result in a lower score in a particular area.

    The U.S. NCAP does not use observations to modify test scores. According
    to a NHTSA official, these observations add subjectivity to the rating
    assessments and are not based on criteria that can be repeated and
    substantiated. Many of the automobile manufacturers we contacted stated
    that using observations adds a subjective element to the test that is
    difficult for them to replicate. Additionally, some pointed out that in
    some cases different inspectors could reach different conclusions.

    Another basic difference in scoring vehicles is the use of a modifier
    system in Europe and Australia. This system adjusts the score generated
    from the dummy injury data where injuries to occupants can be expected to
    be worse than indicated by the dummy readings or the vehicle deformation
    data alone. For example, a frontal test modifier might result in points
    being deducted if the dummy's head hit the steering wheel in a vehicle
    without an air bag.

    The system in Europe and Australia also adjusts points based on the
    existence or absence of various safety features on the test vehicles. For
    example, a test vehicle can get extra points if it has a safety belt
    reminder system that meets their NCAP specifications. Officials said they
    use this approach to encourage manufactures to install new safety features
    sooner than might otherwise occur.

    Officials from several organizations and automobile manufacturers
    operating under the Europe and Australia programs expressed concerns

    that some of the modifiers might not have a direct impact on occupant
    safety and could artificially increase scores. They noted, for example,
    that in some countries safety belt usage exceeds 90 percent and that
    giving extra points for a feature to encourage safety belt use may not
    really add to safety. In addition, some automobile manufacturers
    identified concerns with how items included in the modifier system are
    developed and measured. They said that in some cases they have received
    just 6 months notice of changes. They said that such changes can be
    expensive and that they need to be notified sooner, so they have time to
    make changes to comply with new measures.

    Use of Stars as a Measure of Except for the Insurance Institute, all
    programs used stars to convey test

    Safety	results. Officials from the NCAPs noted that star ratings are well
    understood by the public. For example, NHTSA officials said they used
    focus groups in 1993 to examine various options to communicate crash test
    results to the public, and the five-star rating was found preferable. In
    addition, officials in the other programs told us they followed the U.S.
    NCAP's use of star ratings. None of the programs has plans to change its
    rating measures.

    There have been some concerns expressed about the use of stars. For
    example, a 1996 study by the National Academy of Sciences noted that stars
    are inherently positive symbols and the public may not understand the
    distinctions between the different levels of stars.39 In addition,
    officials of a consumer group noted that most people would associate the
    star rating with hotels and that staying in a three-star hotel would be
    quite acceptable to most people. In discussing its use of Good,
    Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor, the Insurance Institute said it considered
    these types of qualitative measures as being clearer to the general
    public.

    Developing Summary Ratings	Australia, Europe, and Japan NCAPs provide
    summary ratings, while the U.S. NCAP provides only individual ratings for
    each seating position that is included in the test for the frontal and
    side crash tests. For example, Australia and Euro NCAPs provide overall
    ratings that combine the frontal and side crash tests. Japan's NCAP
    combines frontal and side crash tests to provide overall ratings for the
    driver and passenger of a vehicle. Australian and European officials
    explained that they believed potential vehicle purchasers can be confused
    by the large amount of detail available on the

    39Shopping for Safety: Providing Consumer Automotive Safety Information,
    Special Report 248, Transportation Research Board, National Research
    Council.

    test results and that summarizing results makes the ratings more useful.
    They noted they make the actual injury readings available for those
    interested in that level of detail. In addition, while the Insurance
    Institute does not combine individual ratings, it does identify "Best Pick
    - Frontal" and "Best Pick - Side" to assist consumers. Similarly,
    officials with publications like Consumer Reports and The Car Book told us
    they have found it helpful to provide consumers with summarized rating
    information. NHTSA officials noted that overall or summary ratings might
    hide or mask deficiencies in some areas of the tests. For example, they
    said that if a vehicle were to get a very high frontal rating and a very
    low side rating, merging the results could give consumers a misleading
    impression of the overall safety of that vehicle.

    Programs Used a Variety The crash testing programs we examined used a
    variety of approaches to

    Approaches to Inform share safety results with the public. Across all the
    programs, the Internet

    Consumers of Safety 	was the most relied-upon source for getting
    information to consumers, with each organization providing details of its
    test results. Safety

    Results	pamphlets were used by all programs to supplement the safety
    information presented on their Web sites. Some programs also work with the
    news media to increase awareness of test results.

    Internet Used to Convey Results	Each organization made the results of its
    testing program available to the public on the Internet. In general, the
    public can access the results of individual tests, including the actual
    numeric dummy readings. To help the public understand these results, each
    Web site uses charts, tables, and graphics. For example, in addition to
    providing star ratings, the Euro NCAP also uses color-coded dummy injury
    diagrams to display how the specific body regions perform in the frontal,
    side, pole, and pedestrian tests. The color-coded indicators are: Good
    (Green), Adequate (Yellow), Marginal (Orange), Weak (Red), and Poor
    (Brown). The color used is based on the points awarded for that body
    region, as shown in figure 21.

    Publications Used to Share Test Results

    Working with the News Media to Share Test Results

    Source: Euro NCAP.

    Each testing organization publishes the results of its testing programs.
    The U.S. NCAP publishes the Buying a Safer Car booklet, which provides new
    and carryover crash test ratings. The Insurance Institute publishes a
    Status Report newsletter about 10 times a year, which contains new crash
    test ratings as well as other highway safety information. It can be
    obtained in hard copy through subscription, as well as downloaded from the
    Insurance Institute's Web site. Australia publishes a Crash Test Update
    brochure twice a year, which provides new crash test results. According to
    Euro NCAP officials, Euro NCAP divides its tests into two test phases and
    releases the results twice a year-in November and June. The results are
    also published by What Car? (a British car magazine), Which? Car (a
    magazine owned and produced by British consumer associations), and the
    General German Automobile Association (ADAC) magazine. Other consumer
    magazines in Europe also provide crash test information. Lastly, Japan
    annually publishes the Choosing a Safer Car booklet, which provides new
    and carryover crash test results. The Japan NCAP also publishes summary
    brochures of test results.

    Like the U.S. NCAP, the Insurance Institute and the Australia and Euro
    NCAPs worked with the news media to inform consumers about the results of
    the vehicle safety tests. For example, each program issued press releases
    to convey the results of safety research and crash tests. In addition, the

    Insurance Institute has worked with television broadcasts, such as the
    prime time news magazine program Dateline NBC, to raise the public's
    awareness of how vehicles perform in the program's crash tests. Insurance
    Institute officials grant interviews explaining the results of the tests
    and use broadcast-quality film and lighting to record the crash tests and
    make them available for television broadcasts. According to Japan NCAP
    officials, they work with television shows to help produce news segments
    that highlight changes in test procedures and recent test results.
    Further, according to Euro NCAP officials, in addition to other
    activities, Europe promotes consumer education by using crashed vehicles
    as public displays in prominent places in Europe during press conferences.
    The events are designed to attract news media and public attention in an
    attempt to increase public interest in and knowledge about car safety.

    Government and Industry The level of government and industry involvement
    varies among the crash Involvement Varies among the test programs. For
    example, the U.S. NCAP, which is operated and funded

                                 Crash Testing Programs

    solely by the U.S. DOT, has traditionally based its U.S. NCAP on the
    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as a matter of agency policy and
    follows an informal rulemaking process where industry and other interested
    parties can submit comments once NHTSA issues a notice of proposed
    rulemaking. The Insurance Institute, which is funded by private insurance
    companies, has no such process and can make an internal decision to modify
    tests at any time. For example, according to Insurance Institute
    officials, when they began their side-impact tests, they developed a crash
    test barrier to represent the risk of severe head injuries in side impacts
    by SUVs and pickups. The Insurance Institute officials said they did not
    involve automobile manufacturers in the decision-making process but
    informed them as well as NHTSA before implementing the change.

    The Australian NCAP was developed and is dominated mainly by private motor
    clubs but includes government transportation departments in six Australian
    states and territories, the New Zealand government, and consumer groups.
    The national Australian government sets minimum safety standards for
    vehicles but is not involved in funding or managing NCAP. Similarly, the
    Euro NCAP is sponsored by the governments of Great Britain, Sweden,
    Germany, France, and the Netherlands, as well as a number of motor clubs
    and consumer organizations. According to Euro NCAP officials, each
    sponsoring member agrees to perform or sponsor a number of crash tests and
    participates in making the decisions related to the program. In Australia
    and Europe, NCAP officials told us that by not being exclusively
    controlled by government, they have flexibility when

    modifying their programs. They said that as a result they can make changes
    quicker because they do not have to follow governmental procedures.

    According to NCAP officials, the decision processes for Australia and
    Europe involve the use of committees and working groups to examine issues
    and make recommendations for change. The automobile industry and public
    safety organizations may be involved in providing research or opinions,
    but the committees are free to make decisions they believe are
    appropriate. When these committees make recommendations, the full
    governing body votes to accept or reject the changes. The government
    partners have a vote in the process but cannot veto the result. In
    Australia, according to NCAP and government officials, automobile
    manufacturers were initially reluctant to engage in meaningful dialogue
    with the officials of the Australia NCAP. However, more recently,
    Australia NCAP officials have consulted with manufacturers prior to making
    changes in the program and have received positive responses. On the other
    hand, the Euro NCAP allows industry representatives to participate in the
    discussions of the subgroups of its two technical working groups-primary
    safety and secondary safety.40 Also, the technical working groups and
    automobile manufacturers engage in direct dialogue in industry liaison
    meetings.

    According to NCAP officials, Japan's NCAP is funded by the government but
    administered by an independent, government-appointed committee. The
    committee includes members who are experts from automobile research
    institutes, academics, journalists, and representatives of the Japanese
    automobile industry and the automobile importers association. This
    government/industry committee manages the program and must approve changes
    submitted by program officials. The committee reaches its decisions
    through consensus. Although the government ministry that oversees the
    program may override the committee's decisions, this has never occurred.

    40Primary safety includes vehicle safety features designed to help
    vehicles avoid crashes. Secondary safety includes vehicle safety features
    designed to help minimize the risk of injury for vehicle occupants
    involved in crashes.

    NCAP Has Contributed to Making Vehicles Safer, but Changes are Needed to
    Maintain Its Relevance

    NCAP has been successful in encouraging manufacturers to produce safer
    vehicles and providing consumers with comparative safety information.
    However, the program is at a crossroads where it will need to change to
    maintain its relevance. The usefulness of the current tests has been
    eroded by changes in the vehicle fleet that have occurred since the
    program began. Today there are many more large pickups, minivans, and SUVs
    than existed 27 years ago and new safety hazards have resulted from the
    incompatibility between large and small vehicles and rollover crashes,
    which are not fully addressed by current NCAP tests. In addition, because
    most vehicles now receive four- or five-star ratings, the NCAP tests
    provide little incentive for automakers to continue to improve vehicle
    safety and little differentiation among vehicle ratings for consumers.
    Lastly, NHTSA is upgrading its frontal and side crash tests in the Federal
    Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which will make current NCAP tests less
    meaningful. Opportunities to enhance the program include developing
    approaches to better measure the effects of crashes between large and
    small vehicles and occupant protection in rollovers, rating technologies
    that help prevent crashes from occurring, and using different measures to
    rate the crash results. NHTSA also has opportunities to enhance the
    presentation and timeliness of information provided to consumers.

    NCAP Has Encouraged NCAP testing has contributed to more crashworthy
    passenger vehicles and Improvement in Vehicle NHTSA has informed the
    public of test results. As shown in figure 22, there Safety and Provided
    the has been a substantial increase in the average star rating of vehicles
    since

    testing began. In 2004, tested vehicles averaged about 4.6 stars for
    thePublic with Vehicle Safety driver in frontal crash tests, about 4.4
    stars for the passenger in frontal Information crash tests, about 4.4
    stars for the driver in side crash tests, and about 4.3

    stars for the rear passenger in side crash tests.

    Figure 22: Improvement of Average Star Ratings for Frontal and Side NCAP
    Tests Side star ratings over timeFrontal star ratings over time

    Average star rating Average star rating 55

    44

    33

    22

    11

    00

    1984 1994 2004 1997 2000 2004 Year Year

                               Average star rating driver

                             Average star rating passenger

    Source: GAO analysis of historical NCAP data provided by NHTSA.

    Note: Data include only the vehicles that were crash tested for each model
    year.

    The improved ratings indicate that manufacturers have taken NCAP seriously
    and designed and built vehicles that do well on NCAP tests. Automakers
    told us that vehicle safety and NCAP test results have become an important
    marketing tool. As a result, many auto manufacturers advertise five-star
    ratings in government crash tests in their television, radio, and print
    ads.

    NHTSA has informed the public of the NCAP test results through its Web
    site and by publishing a safety brochure. In addition, according to NHTSA
    officials, the NCAP Web site has been redesigned in an effort to make it
    more user-friendly. More importantly, NCAP crash test results are used by
    popular publications that influence large segments of the car-buying
    public. Both Consumer Reports and The Car Book use NCAP test results as
    part of their vehicle safety ratings.

    Without Change, NCAP's Relevance Will Likely Diminish

    While NCAP has been successful in encouraging manufacturers to make safer
    vehicles, it will need to change to remain relevant. There have been
    significant changes in the makeup of the nation's vehicle fleet, a growing
    similarity of crash test ratings, and upgrades in the safety standard
    tests for frontal and side crashworthiness. Without addressing these
    changes, NCAP provides little incentive to manufacturers to continue to
    improve safety and may provide consumers with only limited comparative
    information on vehicle safety.

    Since NHTSA began NCAP testing in 1979, there have been dramatic changes
    in the vehicle fleet. Vehicles such as pickups, minivans, and SUVs have
    transformed the fleet once dominated by passenger cars. There are now more
    than 85 million pickups, minivans, and SUVs on the road, representing
    about 37 percent of the vehicle fleet. The change in vehicle fleet
    presents new safety challenges that NCAP's testing does not fully
    address-vehicle incompatibility and rollover. The issue of incompatibility
    emerges when a large vehicle such as a pickup, minivan, or SUV crashes
    into a smaller, lighter vehicle because the larger vehicle can inflict
    serious damage that is particularly dangerous to the occupants of the
    smaller vehicle. The current NCAP frontal and side tests do not account
    for vehicles of different size, weight, and geometry crashing into one
    another. Significant differences in ratings can result when tests are
    designed to address these vehicle differences, as evidenced by comparing
    the Insurance Institute side test results with NCAP results. The Insurance
    Institute, which uses a higher SUV-like barrier, gave 27 vehicles its
    lowest rating (Poor) in side-impact tests, primarily because there were no
    side air bags in the vehicle. NHTSA, which uses a low barrier and, unlike
    the Insurance Institute, does not include head measures in its star
    calculations, gave 21 of these same 27 vehicles (77 percent) four- or
    five-star safety ratings. Also, with the increase in pickups, minivans,
    and SUVs in the nation's fleet, vehicle rollover has become a more
    important issue; in 2003, rollovers accounted for over 10,000 fatalities,
    or more than 30 percent of all passenger vehicle occupant fatalities.
    However, the NCAP rollover test only measures the likelihood that a
    vehicle will roll over and does not assess the safety afforded to
    occupants should a rollover occur.

    NCAP frontal and side crash test results have improved to a point where
    there is little difference among most vehicles' ratings. In 2004, NHTSA

    provided the public with NCAP rating information for 234 vehicles.41 Most
    of these vehicle ratings were four or five stars for drivers and
    passengers in frontal and side crash tests, as shown in figure 23.

    Figure 23: Frequency of Four- and Five-Star Ratings for Frontal and Side
    Crash Tests in 2004 Number of star ratings Number of star ratings

    140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

                                                          140 120 100 80 60 40 20

    0

    Frequency of star ratings for driver in frontal test in 2004 Frequency of
    star ratings for driver in side test in 2004

    Frequency of star ratings for passenger in frontal test in 2004 Frequency
    of star ratings for rear passenger in side test in 2004

    Source: GAO analysis of 2004 NCAP data available on NHTSA's Web site.

    Note: For the driver and front passenger in the frontal test, star ratings
    were available for 234 vehicles in 2004. For the driver in the side test,
    star ratings were available for 210 vehicles in 2004. For the rear
    passenger driver's side, in the side test, star ratings were available for
    186 vehicles in 2004.

    The vehicles crash tested more recently have done even better. Of the 49
    frontal and 18 side crash tests conducted in 2004, over 95 percent
    received a four- or five-star rating. As a result, NCAP's ability to
    challenge auto manufacturers to continue improving vehicle safety has
    eroded. Also, with almost all scores being about the same, consumers do
    not have

    41This includes carryover vehicles and corporate twins. Carryover vehicles
    are those that have been tested under NCAP in previous years and whose
    design and safety rating has not changed. Corporate twins are two vehicles
    that are built on the same chassis, share most of their underhood and
    interior components, and have the same air bag and safety belt interaction
    but are sold under different brand names.

    comparative safety information that differentiates significantly among
    vehicles.

    Lastly, NHTSA is upgrading the frontal and side tests under the Federal
    Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which make current NCAP testing less
    meaningful.42 For frontal tests, safety standards will require that for
    vehicles built after September 1, 2007, manufacturers must certify the
    crashworthiness of their vehicles at 35 mph (instead of the current 30
    mph).43 This change will eliminate the speed difference between the
    frontal NCAP and the frontal belted safety standard tests. Because of this
    change, NHTSA has begun to examine alternatives to its current frontal
    crash test program and hopes to finalize any changes to the NCAP frontal
    test in 2006. Similarly, NHTSA announced in May 2004 that it is proposing
    to add a 20 mph side pole crash test to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
    Standards. This test will use a more technically advanced average-size
    male dummy than is currently used in the NCAP tests and a dummy that
    represents a small female. According to NHTSA officials, the new test and
    advanced dummy will enable them to confidently measure compliance with
    head injury standards and challenge automakers to provide adequate head
    protection to vehicle occupants in side impact crashes. However, neither
    this test nor the new dummies are currently part of NCAP. NHTSA officials
    said they plan to begin examining alternatives to the side crash test at
    the end of 2005.

    Opportunities to Enhance NCAP Testing

    NHTSA could explore several opportunities to enhance NCAP and ensure its
    relevance. These opportunities include (1) addressing changes to the
    vehicle fleet, particularly as it relates to vehicle incompatibility and
    rollover; (2) developing approaches for NCAP to encourage improved safety
    from emerging technology that helps drivers avoid crashes; and (3)
    examining the various testing procedures and measures that are available
    and in use by other organizations and determining their applicability to
    NCAP.

    42NHTSA made these changes in recognition of the need to upgrade the level
    of safety in frontal crashes in the regulations and to reflect specific
    fatality risks in side crashes in the regulations.

    43The higher test speed will be phased in for increasing percentages of
    vehicles over 3 years.

    Addressing the Increased Fatality Risks Created by Changes in the Vehicle
    Fleet

    Vehicle Incompatibility 	When pickups, minivans, and SUVs collide with
    smaller passenger cars, the mismatch of the vehicles' weight, height, and
    geometry are considerable, as shown in figure 24. In terms of the weight
    differences, subcompact cars may weigh as little as 1,500 pounds while the
    large SUV may exceed 6,000 pounds.

    Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    Because of the higher ground clearance of large pickups and SUVs, their
    bumpers may skip over the crash structures of passenger cars, raising the
    likelihood that an occupant of the car will be killed or seriously
    injured.44 A

    44This is called self protection and partner protection. While the
    occupants of a large vehicle might be protected in a crash, occupants of a
    smaller vehicle, the partner in a vehicle-to-vehicle crash, would have
    less protection.

    2003 NHTSA study found that in frontal collisions involving a car and a
    light truck or van, there were almost four times the number of fatalities
    in the car than in the light truck or van.45 The success of NCAP and the
    other testing programs may have indirectly contributed to this problem.
    According to some experts, to improve crashworthiness scores of large
    vehicles, vehicle manufacturers have increased the rigidity of the
    structure that absorbs and manages the substantial forces in the crash
    tests.46 As a result, the structure of large vehicles has had to become
    more substantial and stiffer than that of smaller vehicles because the
    larger vehicles must absorb more energy in the crash test due to their
    greater weight.

    NHTSA's NCAP frontal tests could potentially be modified to measure and
    rate vehicle incompatibility. Some experts, NHTSA officials, and vehicle
    manufacturers told us that there are a number of approaches being
    investigated that could help to address vehicle incompatibility. For
    example, some researchers are examining the use of sensors in test walls;
    crashing a moving deformable barrier into the front of the test vehicles,
    instead of propelling the test vehicle into a solid wall; or crashing test
    vehicles into a solid wall at varying speeds, depending on the size of the
    vehicle, to equate the crash to hitting a standardized vehicle. The
    hypothesis is that information obtained by measuring how vehicles strike
    the crash test barrier could be used to estimate the relative damage that
    a vehicle would cause in collisions with another vehicle and could be used
    to rate the aggressiveness of vehicles. Using a moving barrier for frontal
    crash tests would make test results comparable across weight classes, as
    is the case with the current side-impact rating, because all vehicles
    would be struck by the same size barrier. Using variable speeds based on
    vehicle weight would also allow ratings of small and large vehicles to be
    compared. Each of these alternatives requires further development and
    testing to assess the overall safety implications, including the potential
    for reducing fatalities in passenger cars when struck by larger vehicles,
    the potential for diminished occupant protection for large vehicles in
    single vehicle crashes,

    45Initiatives to Address Vehicle Compatibility, NHTSA, June 2003.

    46According to a safety expert, automobile manufacturers have generally
    opted to increase the strength and stiffness of the front of their
    vehicles within the original vehicle design rather than adding additional
    length to the front of vehicles which could be used to reduce the impact
    on the vehicle struck.

    and consideration of potential costs.47 Ratings based on these tests could
    provide manufacturers with incentives to address incompatibilities between
    large and small vehicles and provide consumers with information on the
    potential safety hazards associated with vehicle incompatibility.

    The problem of vehicle incompatibility is even worse in side crashes. When
    a large vehicle like an SUV crashes into the side of a small vehicle, the
    larger vehicle may miss the door sill of the vehicle, causing most of the
    energy to be directed to the door and window areas, as shown in figure 25.
    In such cases, the injuries can be exacerbated when there is no side head
    protection, leaving the window as the only barrier between the occupant's
    head and the impacting vehicle. Head injuries are a major cause of
    fatalities in side collisions, particularly in crashes where a single
    vehicle strikes a tree or utility pole and in intersection crashes where
    smaller, lighter vehicles are hit in the side by larger, heavier vehicles.
    NHTSA has estimated that in serious side-impact crashes involving one or
    more fatalities in 2002, nearly 60 percent of those killed suffered brain
    injuries.

                Source: GAO photo of Insurance Institute test vehicles.

    47According to NHTSA officials, in such tests, larger vehicles could
    experience a lower change in velocity than smaller vehicles, potentially
    leading manufacturers to incorporate softer structures that would not
    absorb as much energy when these vehicles are in single vehicle crashes.

    There are also possibilities for modifying the NCAP side test to help
    address vehicle incompatibility. For example, NHTSA could examine the
    barrier that is being used to ensure that it best represents today's
    vehicles. NHTSA's current side-impact barrier is about the size and weight
    of a compact car. As a result, when this barrier hits the test vehicle, it
    will almost always hit the bottom sill of the door, which is designed to
    manage much of the crash energy.48 To address the disparity in height
    between passenger cars and SUVs, the Insurance Institute uses a
    side-impact test barrier that is larger and higher than NCAP's barrier, as
    shown in figure 26. According to Insurance Institute officials, they
    designed this barrier to represent an SUV so their test could more
    accurately reflect the increased risk for occupants in smaller vehicles.
    They said that it has encouraged manufacturers to install side curtain air
    bags. Using this higher barrier has resulted in different scores than
    NHTSA's NCAP. For example, the Insurance Institute has given 27 vehicles
    its lowest rating (Poor) in sideimpact tests, while NHTSA, which uses a
    low barrier and does not include head measures in its star calculations,
    gave 21 of these 27 vehicles (77 percent) four- or five-star safety
    ratings.

    Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

    Click the following link to watch a video of an interior view of the side
    impact crash test with an SUV-like barrier conducted by the Insurance
    Institute for Highway Safety at 31 mph:
    http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05370v9.mpg

    48NHTSA officials said they are addressing this issue by proposing a
    change to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that would require a
    20 mph oblique side pole test.

    Officials from a number of automobile makers told us that vehicle
    compatibility is an important safety issue, and they are working to
    enhance occupant protection in front and side crashes, outside of NHTSA
    safety standards or NCAP testing. Several automakers voluntarily entered
    into an agreement with the Insurance Institute to work collaboratively to
    have all of their vehicles meet new safety criteria that require large
    vehicles to match the height of the fronts of small vehicles by September
    2009, as shown in figure 27. According to Alliance of Automobile
    Manufacturers members, better matching of structural components may
    enhance the ability to absorb crash forces, thereby reducing occupant
    fatalities by an estimated 16 to 28 percent. The agreement also specified
    that by September 1, 2007, at least 50 percent of these automakers'
    vehicles offered in the United States will meet enhanced side-impact
    protection with features such as side air bags, air curtain bags, and
    revised side-impact structures. By September 2009 all vehicles of these
    manufacturers are to meet the new side criteria.

    In commenting on a draft of this report, NHTSA officials noted that in
    order for 50 percent of the vehicles to meet the voluntary side
    requirements by September 1, 2007, manufacturers can certify by using
    either the existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard pole test or the
    Insurance Institutes side impact test. They noted that in September 2009,
    the pole test will no longer be an option and that, therefore, it is very
    possible that large vehicles, such as pickups, minivans, and SUVs, would
    be able to pass the test without incorporation of enhanced side-impact
    features such as side air bags or curtains for the following reasons:

    o 	Manufacturers may not need to subject large vehicles to the pole test
    by September 1, 2007, if 50 percent of its fleet is comprised of smaller
    passenger cars.

    o 	Larger vehicles will sustain a lower velocity change than smaller
    vehicles when struck by the Insurance Institute barrier.

    o 	The higher ride height of large vehicles could keep the dummy's head
    from striking the top of the Insurance Institute barrier.

    Occupant Protection in Rollover Crashes

    Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    Given the changes in the vehicle fleet, fatalities due to rollover crashes
    have continued to increase. Rollovers are dangerous incidents and have a
    higher fatality rate than other kinds of crashes. Just over 2 percent of
    all police-reported crashes that occurred in 2003 were rollovers, but they
    accounted for over 10,000 highway fatalities, or more than 30 percent of
    all passenger vehicle occupant deaths. All types of vehicles can roll
    over. However, taller, narrower vehicles such as pickups, minivans, and
    SUVs have higher centers of gravity and thus are more susceptible to roll
    over if involved in a single-vehicle crash. NHTSA reported that 61 percent
    of fatalities in SUVs and 45 percent of fatalities in pickups in 2002 were
    the results of rollover crashes.49 NCAP's rollover testing does not rate
    the chance of a potentially life-threatening injury should a rollover
    crash occur; it only measures the risk of rollover.

    49By contrast, 22 percent of those who died in passenger cars in 2002 were
    killed in rollover crashes.

    Although NHTSA has not incorporated occupant protection in rollovers into
    NCAP, officials said they have been examining occupant protection in
    rollover crashes, focusing on reducing occupant ejection and increasing
    roof strength through regulation. According to NHTSA officials, the most
    deadly rollovers occur when unbelted occupants are completely ejected from
    the vehicle though doors, windows, and sun roofs and when the roof crushes
    into the occupant compartment, causing serious, if not deadly, head, neck,
    and spinal cord injuries. NHTSA has proposed changes to the Federal Motor
    Vehicle Safety Standards that would upgrade the door lock requirements to
    help prevent vehicle occupant ejection and increase roof strength. They
    are also considering other ways to prevent ejection, specifically looking
    at the potential of side curtain air bags to prevent ejection through
    vehicle windows.

    NHTSA's NCAP rollover testing could be modified to better measure and rate
    the risks of serious injury associated with a rollover crash. NHTSA
    officials and others said that they have not been able to develop a
    repeatable crash test in which the vehicle rolls over and dummies would be
    used to measure injuries. However, in the absence of such a rollover crash
    test, NCAP could examine various aspects of the vehicle which are known to
    affect occupant safety in rollover, such as rating the roof strength of
    vehicles. For example, officials from a consumer group told us that NHTSA
    could conduct dynamic tests on roof strength and point to a 2002 Society
    of Automotive Engineers paper that attests that such drop tests for roof
    strength are repeatable. They also said that there has been other
    promising research that would measure roof crush in dynamic tests.
    However, including such tests in NCAP would require further development
    and funding considerations.

    Incorporating Active Safety NCAP also has an opportunity to begin
    assessing new technology that

    Technologies into NCAP 	could help prevent crashes. Vehicle manufacturers
    and others have been developing and testing new active safety systems that
    hold promise for reducing traffic fatalities by helping drivers avoid
    crashes altogether. These active safety systems include improving vehicle
    handling and braking in emergency situations, providing warning alerts for
    potential collisions or straying out of roadway lanes, and providing
    distance alerts when driving too close to another vehicle. A 2004 NHTSA
    study estimated that the incorporation of electronic stability control
    systems50 could reduce certain

    50Electronic stability control keeps the vehicle under control by applying
    brakes to individual wheels when the system detects loss of control or
    instability.

    crashes by about 67 percent.51 Similarly, the Insurance Institute reported
    that electronic stability control can reduce the risk of involvement in
    single vehicle crashes by more than 50 percent.52 Some experts suggested
    that NCAP might be used to encourage and speed the adoption of active
    safety systems into the vehicle fleet.

    Some elements of active safety systems are included in some current tests.
    While the rollover test is not designed to measure the effectiveness of
    electronic stability control systems, vehicles equipped with this
    technology would be expected to perform better in the rollover test
    because the vehicle would be less likely to tip up. In addition, brake
    tests are conducted as part of Japan's NCAP, with the results provided as
    a separate safety rating. The Euro NCAP has also established committees to
    identify potential active safety systems to include in their program, as
    well as the testing protocols that would be used.

    While using NCAP to further test and rate active safety systems could
    encourage their adoption in the marketplace, there are challenges to
    overcome. According to NHTSA officials, NHTSA would first need to identify
    those active safety systems that could be effective in preventing crashes.
    They said this would be difficult because they would have to determine how
    well a system helps drivers avoid crashes. Also, determining the testing
    methodology would be challenging because the effectiveness of some active
    systems could be affected by factors such as driver behavior and the
    physical characteristics of the road, such as the dampness of the
    pavement.

    Officials from various automobile manufacturers told us that they are
    developing many new active safety systems with the objective of helping
    drivers avoid crashes. They pointed out that while NCAP could be used to
    encourage them to market such systems, they would have concerns regarding
    which systems to include in NHTSA's program and how the system would be
    rated. In addition, they noted that because of competitive forces, active
    safety advances could be available sooner than NHTSA is capable of
    deciding to include them and developing an acceptable approach for testing
    and rating them. Officials from automakers said they

    51Preliminary Results Analyzing the Effectiveness of Electronic Stability
    Control (ESC) Systems, NHTSA, September 2004.

    52Effects of Electronic Stability Control on Automotive Crash Risk, C.M.
    Farmer, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2004.

    are willing to share their research and work in cooperation with NHTSA to
    develop tests or measurements that could help NCAP address these issues.

    Using Additional Test Measures NHTSA could provide consumers with more
    safety information by using

                               and Different Size Dummies

    additional test measures and different crash dummies. All of the other
    organizations we contacted used more dummy measures to calculate vehicles'
    safety ratings than U.S. NCAP used. To determine the star ratings, NHTSA
    uses head and chest readings from the frontal NCAP test and chest and
    lower spine readings for side-impact tests. Other organizations use
    measurements that included such areas as the head, neck, chest, leg, and
    foot for frontal test ratings and the head, neck, chest, pelvis, and leg
    for side test ratings.53

    The concern with using few dummy readings is that the safety rating might
    not include important safety considerations. While NHTSA uses head and
    chest readings for frontal ratings and chest and lower spine readings for
    the side ratings, it measures other items during crash tests and may
    identify them as "Safety Concerns" on its Web site if they exceed certain
    values. We identified over 140 Safety Concerns on NHTSA's Web site since
    vehicle model year 1990-36 of these were for vehicles that received four-
    or five-star ratings.54 The Safety Concerns included high femur readings
    in frontal crashes, which could mean there was a high likelihood of thigh
    injury; high head acceleration readings in side crashes, which could
    indicate a high likelihood of serious head trauma; and doors opening
    during side crash tests, which could increase the likelihood of occupant
    ejection.55 Having a Safety Concern noted for vehicles with a four- or
    five-star rating presents conflicting information that could be confusing
    to consumers.

    53The U.S. NCAP uses head and chest crash dummy readings in frontal
    crashes and chest and lower spine readings for side crashes because
    according to NHTSA these are the most important indicators of serious or
    fatal injury. The Insurance Institute uses four body regions for its
    frontal crash analysis and three for its side crash analysis. Japan uses
    five body regions for its frontal crash analysis and four for its side
    crash analysis, while Australia and Europe use four for frontal and two
    for side. The other organizations use additional measures to capture what
    can be serious, although not necessarily life-threatening injuries such as
    those to the victim's legs.

    54These Safety Concerns were taken from the several thousand vehicle
    ratings available on NHTSA's Web site, including carryover vehicles and
    corporate twins.

    55Data collected during NCAP tests but not used to calculate star ratings
    are available on the NHTSA Web site. Other data, such as the results of
    force-of-load testing, are available on the NHTSA research Web site.

    As NHTSA makes changes to its testing program, it has the opportunity to
    reexamine the size and type of dummies it uses in crashes in addition to
    the body areas of the dummies being measured. At present, NHTSA's dummies
    equate to an average-size adult male who is about 5 feet 9 inches tall and
    weighs about 170 pounds. Most of the other organizations use this size
    dummy in their crash tests, and vehicle manufacturers work to maximize the
    safety systems for an occupant with these characteristics. However, not
    all vehicle occupants are the same size, and optimizing the restraint
    system for the average male would not necessarily be optimum for others
    who may be smaller, shorter, taller, or heavier.56 Also, children and the
    elderly may react differently to crash forces than the average-size male.
    Recognizing this, the Insurance Institute uses a smaller female dummy
    (about 5 feet tall and weighing about 110 pounds) in the driver and rear
    seat of the sideimpact test. Insurance Institute officials said they made
    this change to encourage manufacturers to install side curtain air bags
    that would extend low enough to protect the heads of smaller passengers.
    In addition, in its proposed side-impact pole standards test, NHTSA
    specifies using a 50th percentile male and a 5th percentile female to
    address the issue of different size drivers and passengers.

    The U.S. NCAP officials said that at this time they are waiting on the
    resolution to the proposed safety standard changes that would add a side
    pole test before deciding on altering the size or type of crash dummies
    they use. While generating additional information on which to base safety
    ratings, altering the size of the dummy in the NCAP tests could provide
    challenges for automobile manufacturers because they would have to conduct
    more internal tests. Officials from many vehicle manufacturers said they
    must already conduct hundreds of crash tests each year to ensure that they
    meet the variety of tests and dummies used in NHTSA's standards, U.S.
    NCAP, and tests conducted by the other testing organizations.57

    56Officials from vehicle manufacturers said they are developing new
    restraint systems that they believe will be able to determine the weight
    of the occupant and will vary the safety belt restraint and air bag
    deployment to maximize the protection for different-sized occupants during
    a crash.

    57Automakers also encouraged NHTSA to work towards consistency with other
    countries to lessen the burden on their testing programs. For example,
    they noted that an advanced side impact dummy called "World SID" has been
    developed and that it should be considered for use in side crash tests by
    all side testing programs.

    Opportunities to Enhance NCAP has the opportunity to enhance its program
    by changing the way it

    the Presentation and reports test results. Specifically, it could provide
    summary ratings, present

    Timeliness of NCAP Results	information in a comparative manner, increase
    public awareness, and make results available earlier in the model year.

    Providing Summary Ratings	According to some safety experts, NHTSA could
    improve its program by developing an overall safety rating rather than
    reporting four separate ratings for crash tests.58 Consumer Reports, The
    Car Book, the Insurance Institute, and all of the other NCAPs provide more
    summary information for consumers than NHTSA. Further, a 1996 National
    Academy of Sciences study that examined NCAP recommended that NHTSA
    provide an overall rating to provide consumers with an overview of a
    vehicle's safety. However, the study also recommended that NHTSA make the
    detailed test results available for those consumers who wish to examine
    them more fully.59

    NHTSA and Insurance Institute officials said they did not develop an
    overall crashworthiness rating because combining ratings are technically
    difficult and could obscure low ratings in one test area that would be
    revealed when test results are reported separately. Insurance Institute
    officials added that consumers can evaluate the different ratings to
    determine those that are most applicable to their situations. They said a
    person who is primarily the sole occupant of a vehicle might not be as
    concerned with the passenger safety rating as someone who routinely
    carries passengers.

    NHTSA officials said that they will continue investigating the feasibility
    of creating an overall safety rating for vehicles. However, they said that
    they would like to incorporate additional elements into such a rating. For
    example, they said that it is important to develop a rating that considers
    more than just the frontal and side-impact test results, such as the
    rollover results and vehicle compatibility, which can have a large bearing
    on the overall safety of vehicles. In their view, without the elements
    that address rollover and compatibility, consumers might get the wrong
    impression of

    58The U.S. NCAP provides four separate star ratings for crash test
    results. There are separate ratings for drivers and passengers (front
    seat) in frontal crashes and separate ratings for drivers and rear (driver
    side) passengers in side-impact crashes.

    59"Shopping for Safety," Special Report 248, National Academy Press
    (Washington, D.C. : 1996).

    the relative safety of vehicles. Officials said they have not yet
    developed a method to incorporate the rollover rating into an overall
    rating and have not identified measures to reflect vehicle compatibility,
    although they have long recognized compatibility as an issue. They could
    not estimate how long it would take to address the problem of adding the
    rollover rating to a combined rating but said they would pursue developing
    a summary safety rating for vehicles after they decide how to measure
    vehicle compatibility.

    Comparative Safety Information Each testing organization uses a different
    presentation approach for

    Could Benefit the Public	reporting its test results, with some providing
    additional information to the public. The U.S. NCAP provides separate star
    ratings for the four dummy positions in the two crash tests and the
    rollover test. The only ratings the U.S. NCAP presents in a comparative
    manner are the rollover ratings, which compare vehicle performance within
    a class of vehicles, such as pickup trucks. In contrast, Australia's and
    Japan's NCAPs provide more comparative information by supplementing their
    star ratings by adding bar charts that show how well the vehicle performed
    in the tests, as shown in figures 28 and 29. The Australia publication
    shows that although two vehicles received three stars, one of them
    performed better than the other. The Japan NCAP rating shows that the
    vehicle received five stars for overall driver safety but that the
    passenger score was higher than that of the driver.

              Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Association.

    Source: Copyright (c) 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and
    Victims' Aid. All rights reserved.

    Similarly, Consumer Reports provides summary safety ratings for accident
    avoidance and crash protection and uses a bar chart to present its overall
    safety score. Consumer Reports also lists vehicles in ranked order rather
    than alphabetically, provides comments to highlight particular aspects of
    each vehicle's performance, and uses qualitative descriptions--Excellent,
    Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor--to help inform its readers of safety
    results. Consumer Reports officials said that the overall rating provides
    an overview of the vehicle's safety, and the two summary categories of
    accident avoidance and crash protection provide additional information
    that consumers may want.

    NHTSA recently began using a rating system for its rollover assessment
    that indicates, along with the star rating, the percentage of likelihood
    that a vehicle may roll over. NHTSA's rollover information provides an
    extra level of detail of vehicle performance than the information provided
    for the frontal and side collision tests. The rollover results are ranked
    according to performance and, as illustrated in figure 30, show how well
    each vehicle performed within the range of performance of its vehicle
    class, such as passenger cars, pickups, vans, and SUVs.

    Increasing Public Awareness of Results

    Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    NHTSA could look to other programs for innovative ways to garner more
    interest in crash test results. Like other testing organizations, NHTSA
    uses the Internet, brochures, and press releases to inform the public of
    NCAP ratings. However, other organizations use additional approaches to
    inform the public of their program and test results. For example, the
    Japan Automobile Federation creates public awareness of the program with a
    portable sled in which the general public can experience a simulated
    collision at 5 kilometers per hour and have a protective air bag deploy.
    The Euro NCAP also stages a public display of crash vehicles. They try to
    select areas where media and public interest would be high. Recent events
    were held in Wenceslas Square, Prague; Athens; and London. Figure 31 shows
    two events, one in London and another in Prague.

    Source: Euro NCAP.

    There have also been proposals to increase public awareness of NCAP
    results by requiring their inclusion on new car stickers. For example, S.
    1072, a bill introduced in the 108th Congress to reauthorize funds for
    federal aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs,
    included a provision that would require automakers to include NCAP test
    results on new car stickers. Officials from consumer advocate groups told
    us that they support such an approach because consumers would have
    information available at the time of their purchase decisions. Officials
    from automakers said that there are a number of challenges that would need
    to be overcome if such an approach were taken, including scheduling tests
    to ensure that results are available in time for the information to be
    included on new car stickers.

    NCAP Ratings Could Be NHTSA could conduct vehicle tests earlier and
    release NCAP ratings

    Available Earlier in the Car sooner in the model year, which would make
    the results more useful for

    Model Year	consumers. NCAP ratings are often released late in the model
    year, after many of the vehicles have already been purchased. In May 2003,
    long after the beginning of model year 2003, NHTSA released the results of
    some model year 2002 vehicle tests. NHTSA published its Buying a Safer Car
    brochure for 2004 in February 2004, about 6 months after the vehicles were
    available for sale and before all of the tests were completed for the 2004
    models. To the extent that test results are available sooner, more car
    buyers could have safety information to help make their purchase
    decisions. For example, by the time NHTSA released the Buying a Safer Car
    brochure in

    February 2004, according to industry sales statistics, about 7.7 million,
    or over 46 percent, of new cars and trucks had been purchased in the
    United States.60 For model year 2005, NHTSA attempted to address the issue
    of getting timely information to consumers by publishing an early edition
    of its Buying a Safer Car brochure in December 2004. This publication
    included test results for some 2005 models. In addition, towards of the
    end 2004, NHTSA began posting the results to its Web site as soon as the
    quality control process was completed. NHTSA officials plan to publish an
    updated version in spring 2005, after additional testing has been
    completed.

    There are several factors that affect the timing of the testing and the
    release of NCAP ratings. First, NHTSA obtains vehicles for NCAP testing
    directly from the dealerships and leasing companies to ensure that each
    vehicle is representative of that make and model. Under this approach,
    testing cannot begin until after vehicles are available for purchase by
    the public-the model year begins in September for many companies. In
    addition, NHTSA does not receive its funding until after the fiscal year
    begins on October 1st of each year. Further, due to the number of vehicles
    to be included, vehicle testing is spread out over a period of months. As
    a result, testing can extend from October though April. Until recently,
    NHTSA did not make ratings available to the public as soon as the results
    were known but waited until all testing of a vehicle category was finished
    before issuing a press release announcing the test results. Beginning with
    model year 2005 tests, NHTSA began posting the test results to its Web
    site after the quality control process was complete. Press releases
    continue to be generated after each batch of tests is completed. NHTSA
    officials said that by releasing the results this way, consumers have
    comparative information on all vehicles of one type at the same time.

    One testing organization has addressed some of the timeliness issues. Euro
    NCAP obtains some vehicles directly from the manufacturers prior to
    distribution to dealerships. This enables them to begin testing before the
    vehicles are available to the public.61 In addition, the Euro NCAP divides
    its program into two testing and information releases each year-one in
    November and one in June-to speed the information to the public.

    60Automotive News. Includes new model year passenger vehicles sales from
    September 2003 though February 2004.

    61The Euro NCAP selects the vehicles from the manufacturers randomly by
    vehicle identification number.

    Conclusions	While NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program has contributed to
    making safer vehicles, it is at a crossroads where it will need to change
    to remain relevant. The usefulness of the current testing has been eroded
    by changes in the vehicle fleet that have occurred since the program
    began. The growing number of large pickups, minivans, and SUVs in the
    nation's vehicle fleet is creating different safety risks, particularly
    with regard to the incompatibility of large and small vehicles and vehicle
    rollover, which NCAP does not fully address. In addition, the very success
    of the program has brought it to a point where it is not clear that the
    program's goals can continue to be met. Because almost all vehicles today
    receive four- and five-star frontal and side-impact safety ratings, NCAP
    provides little incentive for manufacturers to further improve the safety
    of their vehicles and does not provide consumers with information that
    differentiates the safety of one vehicle compared to another. Further, the
    planned changes to the safety standards for frontal and side
    crashworthiness may make current NCAP tests less meaningful.

    While we believe there are opportunities to enhance NCAP by developing
    approaches to better measure the interaction of large and small vehicles
    and occupant protection in rollovers, rating technologies that help
    prevent crashes from occurring, and using different injury measures to
    rate the crash results, there are challenges that must be considered and
    addressed before changes can be implemented. However, without changing its
    testing, NCAP provides little incentive for manufacturers to improve
    vehicle safety. In addition, NHTSA will need to enhance the timeliness of
    testing and presentation of the New Car Assessment Program information.
    For example, by the time NHTSA finished its testing and published the test
    results for model year 2004 vehicles, about 7.7 million, or over 46
    percent of new vehicles had already been purchased. To enhance the
    information available to consumers, NHTSA can provide summary ratings,
    present information in a comparative manner, increase public awareness,
    and conduct tests earlier in the car model year. Given the substantial
    numbers of traffic deaths and injuries suffered on the nation's roads each
    year, efforts to improve vehicle safety seem warranted.

    Recommendations for 	We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation
    direct the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
    to examine

    Executive Action	the future direction of the New Car Assessment Program to
    maximize its value in providing an incentive for manufacturers to improve
    vehicle safety and informing the public about the relative safety of
    vehicles.

    This examination should include

    o 	identifying and evaluating NCAP tests that should help prevent
    fatalities on the nation's roadways, which should include developing
    measures for rating vehicle incompatibility in front and side-impact tests
    and occupant protection in rollover crashes;

    o 	developing approaches to incorporate active safety systems ratings as a
    part of NCAP; and

    o 	analyzing alternative testing methodologies and dummies to provide a
    robust and accurate measure of the likelihood of serious injuries to a
    wide range of vehicle occupants.

    In addition, we recommend that steps be taken to provide the public with
    improved NCAP safety information in a more timely manner. In doing so it
    may be necessary to examine how other organizations inform the public and
    develop summary ratings, whether vehicles could be obtained more
    efficiently for testing, how budgeted funds are managed during the year,
    and how efficiently NCAP times the crash tests conducted by its
    contractors.

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    We provided a copy of the draft report to the Department of Transportation
    for its review and comment. In commenting on the report, the Senior
    Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety commented that NHTSA was
    pleased that the report concluded that NCAP has been successful in
    encouraging manufacturers to make safer vehicles and providing vehicle
    safety information to consumers. While NHTSA generally agreed with the
    report findings, including recognition that there are opportunities to
    enhance NCAP, the official emphasized that NCAP was just one of the many
    interrelated methods, including Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and
    traffic injury control programs, the agency uses to achieve its mission of
    saving lives, preventing injuries, and reducing vehicle-related crashes.
    The official said that NHTSA has been consistently working to address the
    challenges associated with enhancing this complex technical program while
    ensuring that the testing and results reported to consumers are accurate
    and reliable. The official explained that this requires NHTSA to ensure
    that any changes to NCAP, or for that matter to the Federal Motor Vehicle
    Safety Standards, are based on sound science and careful analysis of
    supporting data. The official cited a number of recent efforts that NHTSA
    said demonstrate the careful and systematic approach the agency

    uses when considering changes to the program. These include pilot studies
    with child restraint systems to determine the feasibility of incorporating
    them into NCAP, seeking public comments for revising frontal NCAP
    collision testing, and working to ensure that advanced safety technologies
    are publicized so that consumers can factor them into the vehicle purchase
    decision-making process.

    The NHTSA official also said that the agency recognizes that vehicle
    rollover and compatibility issues cause a significant portion of the fatal
    and serious motor vehicle occupant injuries on our nation's highways, and
    NHTSA has made these areas two of its highest priorities. In June 2003,
    NHTSA published initiatives for public comment to address both of these
    areas. The NHTSA official said the agency is continuing its efforts to
    identify effective vehicle metrics and countermeasures to address these
    issues, since they are necessary in order for NCAP to provide meaningful
    consumer information that can be linked to safety improvements in the
    vehicle.

    We recognize that NCAP is one of a number of efforts that NHTSA uses in an
    attempt to reduce highway crashes, serious injuries, and fatalities. In
    addition, we support NHTSA's view that changes to the NCAP program should
    be based on sound science and careful analysis of supporting data. We
    encourage NHTSA to take timely action to address the issues raised in this
    report. NCAP has helped make vehicles safer, but there are opportunities
    to improve the program and ultimately help save more lives. The risks
    associated with vehicle incompatibility and rollover and the potential
    benefits to be gained from active safety systems heighten the importance
    of addressing these issues as promptly as possible. In addition, analyzing
    alternative testing methodologies and dummies could lead to more robust
    and accurate measures of the likelihood of serious injury to a wide range
    of vehicle occupants. Lastly, NHTSA has the opportunity to improve the
    timeliness and presentation of the NCAP results, which could help
    consumers make informed decisions when they purchase cars.

    NHTSA also provided technical clarifications to our report, which we
    incorporated as appropriate.

    We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional
    committees and the Secretary of Transportation. We will also make copies
    available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be
    available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. We are
    also making

    available a version of this report that includes video clips of some of
    the
    crash tests conducted by NHTSA and others.

    If you or your staffs have any questions regarding the contents of this
    report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or heckerj@gao.gov.
    Individuals
    making key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IX.

    JayEtta Z. Hecker
    Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

    Appendix I

    Scope and Methodology

    To determine how NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program tests vehicles, rates
    their safety, and reports the results to the public, we reviewed Federal
    Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CFR Title 49: Chapter V, Part 571); the
    Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972 (Public Law 92513);
    the Transportation, Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation
    (TREAD) Act; and other documents pertaining to NCAP regulations. We also
    searched NHTSA's docket and NCAP documentation. In addition, we conducted
    interviews with NHTSA officials responsible for operating the Federal
    Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulatory program and the New Car
    Assessment Program. We visited and interviewed officials from the Federal
    Highway Administration and the National Crash Analysis Center. During
    visits to all five of the contractors that perform regulatory and NCAP
    crash tests-- including Karco Engineering, LLC, in Adelanto, California;
    MGA Research Corporation in Burlington, Wisconsin; Medical College of
    Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; General Dynamics- Advanced Information
    Systems in Buffalo, New York; and the Transportation Research Center,
    Inc., in East Liberty, Ohio--we interviewed officials and engineers
    performing tests and observed various crash tests. We documented the
    procedures for obtaining the data, how results were recorded, and the
    conversion into star ratings. We determined that NCAP data were
    sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. In addition, we
    reviewed literature pertaining to vehicle safety issues and documents
    published by the Transportation Research Board.

    To compare NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program with other programs that
    test vehicles and report vehicle safety results to the public, we
    researched literature and interviewed NHTSA officials to identify three
    foreign New Car Assessment Programs (in Australia, Europe, and Japan) and
    the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety as a domestic program. We also
    identified publishers of Consumer Reports and The Car Book as
    organizations that used NHTSA's NCAP data to derive their own vehicle
    safety ratings. We identified a program in Korea but did not include this
    program in our review because it began operating in 1999 and had not
    tested a significant number of vehicles.

    We obtained information on these programs by reviewing their literature
    and their Web sites. We also interviewed officials and visited the test
    facilities of the Insurance Institute and the NCAPs in Australia, Europe,
    and Japan. We visited the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety's Vehicle
    Research Center and observed a crash test. We also examined international
    crash test and rating programs, including the Australia, Euro, and Japan
    NCAPs. For Australia's NCAP, we visited Australia and conducted

    Appendix I
    Scope and Methodology

    interviews with government officials associated with the respective New
    Car Assessment Program and vehicle safety policy. For Euro NCAP, we
    visited Belgium, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, where we
    conducted interviews with the European Commission, and the government
    officials associated with the respective New Car Assessment Programs and
    vehicle safety policies in Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. For
    Japan's NCAP, we visited Japan and interviewed government officials
    associated with the respective New Car Assessment Program and vehicle
    safety policy. While in these countries, we also interviewed auto
    associations, consumer advocacy groups, and vehicle safety experts. We
    identified and selected these auto associations, consumer advocacy groups,
    and vehicle safety experts by reviewing studies and conference papers,
    talking to program officials and other experts, and reviewing materials on
    Web sites. We interviewed auto manufacturers in these countries, including
    BMW, Honda, Mercedes, Nissan, Toyota, and Volvo. We reviewed New Car
    Assessment Program regulations, testing protocols, and program
    documentation. See table 1 for a list of domestic and international
    organizations contacted.

    To determine whether opportunities exist for NCAP to enhance its vehicle
    safety testing and reporting, we obtained views from experts in vehicle
    safety and the auto and insurance industries. In selecting vehicle safety
    experts, we examined studies and conference papers, considered referrals
    from other experts, and consulted the National Academy of Sciences. We
    interviewed officials of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive
    Medicine and Applied Research Associates. We visited and interviewed
    automobile manufacturers in the United States, including General Motors,
    Ford Motor Company, Daimler-Chrysler, and American Honda Motor Company. We
    interviewed trade associations including the Alliance of Automobile
    Manufacturers and the Association of International Automobile
    Manufacturers. We interviewed consumer advocacy groups, including
    Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety,
    Advocates for Highway Safety and Auto Safety, and the National Safety
    Council. We reviewed relevant research on consumer information regarding
    vehicle safety from the Transportation Research Board.

    Appendix I
    Scope and Methodology

                        Table 1: List of Organizations Contacted

    U.S. NCAP

                     Federal agencies Department of Transportation

    NHTSA

             George Washington University's National Crash Analysis Center

    Federal Highway Administration

                           Consumer information organizations

                                    Consumer Reports

                       The Center for Auto Safety (The Car Book)

    Crash test organizations

                         Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

    Automobile manufacturers

    American Honda Motor Company

    Daimler-Chrysler Corporation

    Ford Motor Company

    General Motors Corporation

                           Industry associations and experts

    AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
    Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
    American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
    Applied Research Associates
    Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine
    Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
    Consumers Union
    Japan Automobile Standards Internationalization Center
    National Safety Council
    Public Citizen
    Transportation Research Board
    Vehicle Certification Agency North America

    Contractors

    General Dynamics-Advanced Information Systems
    Karco Engineering, LLC
    Medical College of Wisconsin
    MGA Research Corporation
    Transportation Research Center

    Appendix I
    Scope and Methodology

                             (Continued From Previous Page)

    Australia NCAP

    Australia Automobile Association (administrator for Australia NCAP)

    Australian Consumers' Association (CHOICE magazine)

    Department of Transport and Regional Services-Vehicle Safety Standards

        Crashlab-New South Wales Road and Traffic Authority (Australia NCAP test
                                       facility)

    Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries

    Monash University Accident Research Center

    National Roads and Motorists Association Motoring and Services Royal Automobile
                                    Club of Victoria

                          Victoria Road and Traffic Authority

    Euro NCAP

    Belgium

    European Auto Manufacturers Association European Commission, Directorate General
               for Energy and Transport European Transport Safety Council

    Germany

                         General German Automobile Club (ADAC)

    BMW AG
    Daimler Chrysler AG, Mercedes-Benz Technology Center
    Federal Ministry for Traffic, Building, and Housing
    TU:V Automotive Group

    United Kingdom

    Automotive Safety Centre at the University of Birmingham
    Department for Transport
    Euro NCAP
    International Consumer Research and Testing (Which? magazine)
    Thatcham (Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre)
    Transportation Research Laboratory

    Sweden

    Swedish Road Administration
    Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute
    Volvo

    Japan NCAP

    Honda Research and Development Corporation
    Japan Auto Research Institute (Japan NCAP test facility)
    Japan Automobile Federation
    Japan Automobile Importers Association
    Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association

    Appendix I
    Scope and Methodology

                             (Continued From Previous Page)

         Japan Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport Mitsubishi Motors
    Corporation National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victim's Aid (Japan NCAP)
                                Nissan Motor Corporation

                                Toyota Motor Corporation

    Source: GAO.

    We conducted our work from March 2004 through April 2005 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Appendix II

                       Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings

    To rate a vehicle's crashworthiness, NHTSA combines information about (1)
    the forces that would injure a human during a crash and (2) the effects of
    those forces on areas of the human body. The forces that would injure a
    human during a crash are measured by anthropomorphic test devices,
    commonly referred to as crash test dummies, which serve as proxies for
    human vehicle occupants. These dummies are fitted with accelerometers and
    load sensors that measure the forces of impact on particular areas of the
    body, as shown in figure 32.

    Appendix II
    Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings

    Source: Copyright (c) 2005 Traffic Safety Research and Engineering AB. All
    rights reserved.

    Because the current dummy technology has yet to replicate a human with the
    same biological matter or physiology, dummies cannot exhibit injuries
    following a crash as a human would. Therefore, the effects of the forces
    on particular areas of the human body, as measured by the dummies, have
    been developed by researchers who have gathered information by applying
    varying forces to biological specimens and by using a scale developed by
    the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM).

    Appendix II
    Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings

    This scale, the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), ranks injuries, from minor
    through currently untreatable, for particular areas of the body and
    assigns a number from 1 through 6 to each rank, as shown in table 2. The
    AIS is used to provide a simple numerical method for ranking and comparing
    injuries by severity.

    Table 2: Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)

                             AIS code Description of injury

    Minor

    Moderate

    Serious

    Severe

    Critical

    Currently untreatable

    Source: Copyright (c) 2005 Association for the Advancement of Automotive
    Medicine, reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

    AIS values in NCAP are injury probability values derived from measurements
    of dummy response taken from specific characteristics (e.g., size, shape,
    mass, stiffness, or energy dissipation) that simulate corresponding human
    responses (e.g., acceleration, velocity, or articulation). These dummy
    responses are correlated with both experimental biomechanical research as
    well as with real world crash injury investigation. Researchers have used
    a statistical procedure to relate the levels of injury to the forces that
    caused them. This procedure produces theoretical injury curves, which
    NHTSA uses as the basis for safety ratings.

    NHTSA develops crashworthiness ratings, expressed in stars, for both
    frontal and side crashes. To develop the NCAP ratings for frontal crashes,
    NHTSA measures forces to the head and chest. Specifically, the injury
    criteria for the frontal star rating are the head, as measured by a
    composite of acceleration values known as the Head Injury Criterion (HIC),
    and the chest, as measured by a chest deceleration value known as chest
    Gs. Each of these two measures has its own injury risk curve that has been
    fixed at AIS level 4 or greater-that is, a severe, critical, or currently
    untreatable injury, as shown in figures 33 and 34. Using the mathematical
    functions that describe each of these injury risk curves, NHTSA transforms
    the HIC and chest G measures from the frontal NCAP test into probabilities
    of head and chest injuries of AIS level 4 or greater. The lower the HIC
    and chest G

    Appendix II
    Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings

    measures, the less risk of receiving a severe, critical, or currently
    untreatable injury to the head and chest in a full frontal crash.

    80

    60

    40

    20

    0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 HIC

    Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    Appendix II
    Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings

    Probability of AIS >4 chest injury

    100

    80

    60

    40

    20

    0 0 30 60 90 120 150 Chest G

    Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    To convert the probability of severe injury for particular HIC and Chest G
    scores into a star rating for the frontal NCAP test, NHTSA adds the
    probability of severe injury to the head and chest and then subtracts the
    product, shown below in figure 35. NHTSA concluded that a combined effect
    of injury to the head and chest should be used since it is well documented
    that an individual who suffers multiple injuries has a higher risk of
    death. NHTSA calculates the probability of severe injury to the head and
    chest for both the driver and the front passenger dummies in the frontal
    NCAP test.

    Figure 35: Probability Equation Used to Produce Star Ratings for Frontal
    Crashes

    Prob(Combined) = Prob(HIC) + Prob(Chest) - (Prob(HIC) * Prob(Chest))

    Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    To develop the NCAP ratings for side crashes, NHTSA measures forces to the
    ribs and lower spine. Specifically, the injury criteria for the side star
    rating are the greater acceleration of the upper or lower ribs and the
    acceleration of the lower spine. NHTSA averages these accelerations to

    Appendix II
    Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings

    generate a measurement known as the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI). The TTI
    also has an injury curve that has been fixed at the AIS level of 4 or
    greater, as shown in figure 36. The lower the TTI measure, the lower the
    risk of receiving a severe, critical, or currently untreatable injury to
    the thorax and upper abdomen in a side crash.

    Figure 36: Thoracic Trauma Index Curve Probability of severe thoracic
    injury 100

    80

    60

    40

    20

    0 60 90 120 150 180

    Thoracic Trauma Index

    Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    The Thoracic Trauma Index score and its associated probability of
    receiving an AIS level 4 or greater injury is the sole basis for the side
    NCAP star rating. NHTSA calculates probability of severe injury to the
    thorax and upper abdomen for both the front and rear dummies on the
    driver's side.

    Using the probability of injury calculated from the frontal and side NCAP
    tests, NTHSA assigns a vehicle a rating of one (the worst) to five (the
    best) stars for each of the dummy occupants in each of the crashworthiness
    tests. The star ratings for the frontal and side tests correspond to the
    percentage chance of serious injury for each of these tests.

    The numerical boundaries between each star rating are determined by NHTSA.
    The frontal NCAP star boundaries are roughly twice as large as the side
    NCAP star boundaries because NHTSA uses a combined probability of injury
    to generate star ratings for the frontal NCAP test and uses only one

    Appendix II
    Basis for NHTSA's Crashworthiness Ratings

    probability of injury to generate star ratings for the side NCAP test. In
    addition, the forces and associated probabilities at the boundary between
    two and three stars for both the frontal and side NCAP tests are roughly
    equal to the relevant force thresholds for compliance with two Federal
    Motor Vehicle Safety Standards-numbers 208 and 214, respectively.

    Appendix III

                           Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating

    To indicate the likelihood of a vehicle's rolling over in a single-vehicle
    crash, NHTSA combines the risk of rollover in a single vehicle crash
    indicated by a measure of the vehicle's top-heaviness, called the Static
    Stability Factor (SSF), with the results of a dynamic rollover test to
    produce a star rollover rating. The SSF is an indicator for the most
    frequent type of rollover, called a "tripped rollover," which occurs when
    a vehicle leaves the roadway and its wheels are tripped by a curb, soft
    shoulder, or other roadway object, causing the vehicle to roll over. About
    95 percent of rollovers are tripped. Because the SSF is an indicator of
    the most frequent type of rollover, it plays a significantly larger role
    in a vehicle's star rating than do the results of the dynamic rollover
    test. The dynamic rollover test determines how susceptible a vehicle is to
    an on-road "untripped" rollover-a type that accounts for less than 5
    percent of rollovers. Because untripped rollovers are so infrequent, the
    rollover test does not affect the vehicle's star rating significantly,
    resulting in a difference of no more than half a star in the rating.

    Static Stability Factor	The SSF is a calculation of a vehicle's
    top-heaviness, defined as one-half of the vehicle's track width divided by
    the height of the center of gravity (c.g.). A higher SSF value equates to
    a more stable, less top-heavy vehicle. SSF values across all vehicle types
    range from around 1.0 to 1.5. Most passenger cars have values in the 1.3
    to 1.5 range, as shown in figure 37. Higher riding SUVs, pickups, and vans
    usually have values in the 1.0 to 1.3 range, also shown in figure 37. Many
    of the higher riding vehicles of previous model years are being redesigned
    to ride lower on a wider track to improve their rollover resistance and
    obtain a higher SSF rating.

                                      Appendix III
                           Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating

                Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    After determining the SSF, NHTSA selects certain vehicles for the dynamic
    rollover test. Not all passenger cars selected for NCAP testing undergo
    the dynamic test. Thus far, for most passenger cars, NHTSA has imputed or
    assigned a no-tip result for the dynamic test based on the testing of
    other passenger cars that are more top heavy (according to the SSF score)
    but did not tip up during the dynamic test. NHTSA periodically tests
    passenger cars to validate the imputed results.

    Dynamic Rollover Test	In the dynamic rollover test, a driver sits in the
    vehicle and conducts the test by applying the accelerator and initiating
    commands for the programmable steering controller, which actually
    maneuvers the vehicles, as shown in figure 38. The general steering
    parameters are 270 degrees (about a three-quarters turn) for the initial
    turn and 540 degrees (about one and one-half turn) for the correction
    turn, as shown in figure 39. Outriggers are attached to the vehicle to
    prevent the vehicle from tipping all the way over.

    Appendix III
    Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating

    Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    Appendix III
    Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating

    Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    The result of the dynamic rollover test is either "tip-up" or "no tip-up."
    To receive a "no tip-up" result, a vehicle must reach a speed of 50 miles
    per hour (mph) on four dynamic test runs-two from left to right and two
    from right to left-without the inside wheels on either side of the vehicle
    simultaneously lifting at least 2 inches off the surface, and it must do
    this at two different steering wheel angles. Sensors are used to detect
    wheel-lift, as shown in figure 40. For the first run of each test, the
    speed is 35 mph, and subsequent runs are conducted at about 40 mph, 45
    mph, 47.5 mph, and 50 mph, until the vehicle tips up or attains an
    entrance speed of 50 mph on the last run of each test without tipping up.
    The same series of tests is repeated at a different steering wheel angle.

    Appendix III
    Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating

    Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    NHTSA first began to rate vehicles' rollover avoidance in model year 2001,
    using the SSF alone to determine the star rating. At that time, NHTSA used
    a statistical procedure to determine how the SSF affects the risk of
    rollover.1 Physics theory would suggest that vehicles with a low SSF-
    vehicles that are more top-heavy-are more likely to roll over than
    vehicles

    1NHTSA used linear regression to determine the relationship between a
    vehicle's probability of rollover per single vehicle crash and its Static
    Stability Factor controlling for road use and state dummy variables. It is
    important to emphasize that this relationship may only be imputed to
    vehicles involved in single-vehicle crashes and not to the vehicle fleet
    at large.

    Appendix III
    Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating

    with a high SSF. NHTSA's empirical model confirmed this theory, showing
    that the lower the SSF, the more likely a vehicle is to roll over in a
    singlevehicle crash. For the first 3 years that NHTSA rated rollover risk,
    it used a linear model that examined accident report data at the state
    level. Following the passage of the TREAD Act, which required NHTSA to
    include a dynamic rollover test in NCAP, and the publication of a National
    Academy of Sciences report, which recommended that NHTSA use a nonlinear
    model to predict rollover risk, NHTSA altered its method of calculating
    rollover risk.2 NHTSA now links the SSF and the risk of rollover using a
    nonlinear model.3 In addition, NHTSA includes the results of the dynamic
    test-that is, whether a vehicle tips or not-in this new model, as shown in
    figure 41.

    2The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Rating System for
    Rollover Resistance: An Assessment, TRB Special Report 265 (Washington,
    D.C. : National Academy of Sciences, 2002).

    3NHTSA's new model uses logistic instead of linear regression. In
    addition, NHTSA performs a log transformation of the Static Stability
    Factor to increase the accuracy of the model for vehicles with low Static
    Stability Factors.

                                      Appendix III
                           Basis for NHTSA's Rollover Rating

    Figure 41: NCAP Logistic Model Used to Determine Rollover Ratings

    Chance of rollover 80

    70

    60

    10

    00.95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.55 Static stability factor (SSF)

    No tip Tip Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    A vehicle's rollover rating is an estimate of its risk of rolling over in
    a singlevehicle crash, not a prediction of the likelihood of a rollover
    crash.

    Appendix IV

                         Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

    The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and
    communications organization funded by the U.S. auto insurance industry.
    The Insurance Institute has been conducting vehicle safety research since
    1969, and in 1992 it opened the Vehicle Research Center to conduct vehicle
    crash tests. The Insurance Institute began crash testing and rating
    vehicles for frontal collisions in 1995 and for side collisions in 2003.1
    The center conducts the Insurance Institute's vehicle-related research,
    which includes controlled tests of vehicles and their components using
    instrumented crash tests, as well as studies of real collisions. Insurance
    Institute officials told us that scrutinizing the outcomes of both
    controlled tests and on-the-road crashes gives researchers-and ultimately
    the public-a better idea of how and why vehicle occupants are injured in
    crashes. This research, in turn, leads to vehicle designs that reduce
    injuries. The Insurance Institute buys the vehicles for crash tests
    directly from dealers. It also chooses vehicles for testing to represent
    both a range of manufacturers and the largest portions of new car sales,
    in an effort to cover as much of the marketplace as possible. The
    Insurance Institute tests vehicles in categories, such as small cars,
    minivans, and midsize SUVs.

    Testing Conducted	The Insurance Institute conducts two types of crash
    tests-an offset frontal test and a perpendicular side test. The offset
    frontal test is conducted at about 40 mph to simulate a typical head-on
    collision of two vehicles. The offset frontal test evaluates the potential
    for injuries caused to occupants by intrusion into the occupant
    compartment. The Insurance Institute uses a frontal impact dummy, called
    the 50th percentile Hybrid III dummy, in its frontal crash tests. This
    dummy represents a man of average size, 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighing
    about 170 pounds. Such dummies were designed to measure the risk of injury
    to the head, neck, chest, and lower extremities in a frontal crash.

    The Insurance Institute's perpendicular side test measures the impact of a
    moving deformable barrier striking the driver's side of a passenger
    vehicle at 31 mph. The barrier weighs 3,300 pounds and has a front end
    shaped to simulate the typical front end of a pickup truck or SUV. Two
    instrumented 5th percentile side-impact dummies (SID-IIs), representing
    small females or 12-year-old adolescents who are 5 feet tall and weigh
    about 110 pounds, are positioned in the driver's seat and in the rear seat
    behind the driver to

    1The Insurance Institute began evaluating head restraint geometry in 1995,
    and dynamic seat/head restraint tests were added in 2004.

                   Appendix IV Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

    measure the impact of the vehicle crash. The SID-IIs dummies were designed
    to measure acceleration of the spine and ribs plus compression of the rib
    cage in a side crash.2 They are also equipped with unique load cells,
    which measure the force of the impact applied to the dummies during the
    crash.

    Scoring Tests	To evaluate a vehicle's performance in the frontal crash
    test and develop an overall rating for the frontal test, the Insurance
    Institute uses three types of measures: (1) structural performance, the
    amount and pattern of intrusion into the occupant compartment during the
    offset test; (2) injuries measured by a Hybrid III dummy positioned in the
    driver's seat; and (3) dummy kinematics, or the dummy's movements during
    the test, as determined through an analysis of a slow-motion film. The
    structural performance assessment indicates how well the front-end crush
    zone managed the crash energy and how well the safety cage limited
    intrusion into the driver space. Figure 42 shows the intrusion levels on
    which a vehicle's structural performance is rated. Injury measures are
    used to determine the likelihood of injury to various regions of the
    driver's body. The measures recorded from the head, neck, chest, legs, and
    feet of the dummy indicate the level of stress/strain on that part of the
    body. Thus, greater numbers mean larger stresses and strains and a greater
    risk of injury. Because significant risk of injury can result from
    undesirable dummy kinematics in the absence of high injury measures, such
    as partial ejection from the occupant compartment through a window, a
    slow-motion film is used during the crash test. An analysis of this
    slow-motion film helps evaluate the interactions of the restraint system's
    components-including the safety belts, air bags, steering columns, head
    restraints, and other components- to control the dummy's movement.

    2Compression refers to the extent body regions are squeezed during the
    impact and is used as an indicator of injury to internal organs.

    Appendix IV Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

    40

    35

    30

    25

    20

    15

    10

    5

    0

    Footrest	Left Center Right Brake Left inside Right inside Door toepan
    toepan toepan pedal panel panel

    Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

    A vehicle's overall frontal rating depends on the effectiveness of its
    structure, or safety cage, in protecting the occupant compartment, the
    risk of injury measured for an average-size male, and the effectiveness of
    the restraint system in controlling occupants' movements. The structural
    performance and injury assessments are the major components of each
    vehicle's overall frontal rating; the dummy kinematics (movement)
    contributes less to the rating.

    A vehicle's side crash test performance and overall rating are based on
    (1) the injury measures recorded on the two instrumented SID-IIs dummies
    positioned in the driver's seat and in the rear seat behind the driver,
    (2) an assessment of head-protection countermeasures, and (3) the
    vehicle's structural performance during the impact. The injury measures
    are used to determine the likelihood that the driver, the passenger, or
    both would have sustained serious injury to various body regions. Measures
    are recorded from the head, neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and leg. These
    injury

                   Appendix IV Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

    measures, especially from the head and neck and from the torso (chest and
    abdomen), are the major components of the vehicle's overall rating. To
    supplement head injury measures, the movements and contacts of the
    dummies' heads during the crash are evaluated. High head injury measures
    typically are recorded when the moving deformable barrier hits a dummy's
    head during impact. Moreover, a "near miss" or a grazing contact also
    indicates a potential for serious injury in a real-world crash because
    small differences in an occupant's height or seating position, compared
    with a dummy's, could result in a hard contact and high risk of serious
    head injury. The vehicle's structural performance is based on measurements
    of intrusion into the occupant compartment around the B-pillar (between
    the doors). This assessment indicates how well the vehicle's side
    structure resisted intrusion into the driver's and rear-seat passenger
    space. Some intrusion into the occupant compartment is inevitable in
    serious side crashes.

    The overall side rating depends on the risk of injury measured for small
    female occupants mainly to the head and neck and torso (chest and
    abdomen); the effectiveness of the occupant compartment in protecting the
    head; and the vehicle's structure performance during the impact. The
    overall side rating for any body region, based on the injury measures
    recorded on the two SID-IIs dummies, is the lowest rating scored for any
    injury within that region.

    Sharing Results with the Public

    The Insurance Institute's rating system provides qualitative ratings of
    Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor. The Insurance Institute provides one
    rating for the frontal test and one rating for the side test. Vehicle
    rating information is available on the Insurance Institute's Web site,
    through press releases, and through television coverage. Figure 43 shows
    how the Insurance Institute communicated its ratings to consumers on the
    Internet. In addition to the ratings for frontal and side crashes, the
    Insurance Institute provided the results of various tests, such as those
    of the vehicle's structural performance and of injuries to various body
    regions.

                   Appendix IV Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

    Source: Insurance Insitute for Highway Safety.

    Figure 44 shows how the Insurance Institute presented its ratings to
    consumers in its Status Report. The print version is available only to
    subscribers, and some of the publications can be downloaded from the
    Insurance Institute's Web site.

    Appendix IV Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

    Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

    Note: The names of vehicles that received the crash ratings above were
    purposely removed.

    News magazine television shows, such as Dateline NBC, periodically use
    Insurance Institute crash test results and interview representatives,
    including the president or chief operating officer, as report segments for
    their programs.

    Appendix V

                         Australian New Car Assessment Program

    The Australian New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) provides information for
    consumers on the safety performance of new vehicles sold in Australia and
    New Zealand. The main purposes of the program are to provide new vehicle
    buyers with independent advice on vehicle occupant protection and to
    develop strategies for vehicle manufacturers to increase the level of
    passive safety in their vehicles.1 The program is funded by a consortium
    of the state government transport departments of New South Wales,
    Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, and Western Australia;
    automobile clubs through the Australian Automobile Association and New
    Zealand Automobile Association; the Land Transport Safety Authority of New
    Zealand; and the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society.2 The
    Australia Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services has
    established minimum safety standards for vehicles sold in Australia and
    has conducted joint research projects with NCAP but has not contributed to
    the support of the crash test program.

    The Australia NCAP buys the vehicles that it crash tests directly from
    dealers, as would any consumer. The program selects vehicles on the basis
    of (1) actual or projected sales, to target vehicles that are most
    popular; (2) vehicle model, to account for standard or deluxe models,
    which may contain more expensive passive safety features such as air bags
    and advanced restraint systems; (3) new and popular body designs, to
    select the body design that is most popular or to allow for direct
    comparisons across different makes and models; (4) market segment, to
    target individual segments of the market to allow comparisons of results;
    and (5) vehicle price. Using these selection criteria, the Australia NCAP
    covers more than 70 percent of the new vehicle fleet by volume. The
    program also uses European NCAP (Euro NCAP) crash test results. However,
    the Euro NCAP results are intended to be used as a guide only, because the
    structure and equipment of the European specification model may differ
    materially from

    1Passive safety is the term used to refer to automobile designs and
    technologies that help mitigate the injury potential in vehicle crashes
    (sometimes called "crashworthiness"). Passive safety comes from an
    optimized vehicle structure and vehicle restraint technologies.

    2The Australia New Car Assessment Program is supported by a consortium of
    15 members of the Australian Automobile Association. The membership
    includes the National Roads and Motorists Association; the Royal
    Automobile Clubs of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western
    Australia, and Tasmania; the Automobile Association of the Northern
    Territory; the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society; the state
    road and transport authorities in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland,
    South Australia, and Western Australia; the New Zealand Automobile
    Association; and the New Zealand Land Transport Safety Authority.

                                       Appendix V
                         Australian New Car Assessment Program

    the model of the same name sold in Australia or New Zealand. The Australia
    NCAP tests and reports on vehicles in seven categories-small, medium, and
    large passenger cars; luxury cars; four-wheel drive vehicles (SUVs);
    multipurpose utility vehicles (small trucks); and sports cars.

    Testing Conducted	The Australia NCAP's testing has evolved over time.
    Established in 1992, the Australia NCAP was originally modeled on the U.S.
    program and began rating vehicles in 1993. Initially, it conducted only a
    full frontal crash test, but it added an offset frontal test in 1994. In
    1999, the Australia NCAP harmonized its tests and assessment procedures
    with the Euro NCAP through a memorandum of understanding. By harmonizing,
    it discontinued the full frontal crash test and began conducting the
    perpendicular sideimpact test and pedestrian test. Australia NCAP
    officials have been considering eliminating the perpendicular side-impact
    test in favor of a pole test that they believe will more accurately test
    vehicles of all sizes for occupant protection.

    In 2004, the Australia NCAP performed three crash tests and a pedestrian
    protection test. The three crash tests include the 40 percent offset
    frontal, the perpendicular side-impact, and the side-impact pole tests.
    The offset frontal test involves pulling a test vehicle traveling at 40
    mph (64 km/h) and crashing it into an offset deformable aluminum barrier.
    The deformable barrier has a crushable aluminum honeycomb face attached to
    a solid barrier. The deformable structure resembles the front-end
    characteristics of another vehicle. Two instrumented 50th percentile
    Hybrid III dummies (weighing about 194 pounds each) are used to collect
    data during the crash and are placed in the front driver's and front
    passenger seats. Two child dummies, representing a 3-year-old and a
    1-1/2-year-old child, are placed in the rear seats in appropriate
    restraints. While Australia NCAP does not use the measurements from the
    child dummies in its crash test rating, the dummies are included in the
    tests to maintain alignment with Euro NCAP testing.

    The perpendicular side-impact test involves pulling a barrier with a
    deformable face at about 31 mph (50 km/h) and crashing it into a
    stationary test vehicle at a 90 degree angle centered on the driver's
    seating position. The moving deformable barrier has a mass of 2,095 pounds
    (950 kg) compared with 3,015 pounds (1,367 kg) for the U.S. barrier. One
    instrumented 50th percentile EuroSID-II dummy (weighing about 176 pounds)
    is used to collect data during the crash and is placed in the front driver
    seat. As in the frontal test, to maintain alignment with Euro NCAP's

                                       Appendix V
                         Australian New Car Assessment Program

    testing, the two child dummies are placed in the rear seats in appropriate
    restraints.

    The pole side-impact test involves propelling a vehicle placed on a
    platform at 18 mph (29 km/h) into a cylindrical pole. The pole has a
    diameter of about 10 inches, or about 254 millimeters (mm), and its
    vertical axis is aligned with the front seat dummy's head. One
    instrumented 50th percentile EuroSID-II dummy is used to collect data
    during the crash and is placed in the front driver's seat.

    The pedestrian protection test evaluates the interaction of dummy parts
    and the bumper, hood, and windshield area of a vehicle. Adult and
    childsize dummy parts are propelled at specified areas of the hood and
    front bumper of a vehicle to simulate a 25 mph (40 km/h) car-to-pedestrian
    collision. The test simulates the impact of a lower leg against a bumper,
    a thigh against the lower edge of the hood, and an adult and a child head
    against the upper portion of the hood.

    Scoring Tests	Frontal tests in the Australia NCAP are scored on the basis
    of three types of observations--dummy measurements, a vehicle's structural
    performance, and a post-crash inspection of the vehicle. The injury
    measurements are recorded from two Hybrid III dummies positioned in the
    front driver's seat and front passenger seat. The injury assessment
    evaluates four body regions: (1) head and neck; (2) chest; (3) knee,
    femur, and pelvis; and (4) legs and feet. Structural performance is based
    on measurements indicating the amount and pattern of intrusion into the
    occupant compartment during the test. Dummy injury measurements and
    vehicle deformation can be compared with predicted values. Evidence of
    structural collapse can be determined by a post-crash inspection and by
    viewing a high-speed video recorded from various angles during the crash
    test. The post-crash inspection and video allow trained inspectors to
    assess dummy kinematics, evaluate the evidence of interior contacts, and
    inspect safety belts, seats, and air bags to ensure they operated as
    intended.3 For example, according to Australia NCAP officials, air bag
    performance could be compromised by the dynamics of a crash in ways that
    might not be evident from a post-crash inspection but could be revealed
    through careful analysis of the video.

    3Dummy kinematics (movement) are evaluated by how well the safety belt and
    air bag perform and interact with the steering column and other vehicle
    parts to control movement.

    Appendix V
    Australian New Car Assessment Program

    Each body region receives a score based on the dummy measurements, the
    vehicle deformation data, and the findings of the post-crash inspection
    (using modifiers). For example, excessive rearward movement of the
    steering wheel could lower the head score by a point to reflect identified
    risks. Other modifiers include lack of air bag stability, steering column
    movement, A-pillar movement, structural integrity, hazardous structures in
    the knee impact area, and brake pedal movement.4

    For the side-impact and pole tests, the scores are based on injury
    measurements recorded on one EuroSID-II dummy positioned in the front
    driver's seat. The injury assessment evaluates four body regions: the
    head, ribs, abdomen, and pelvis. A post-crash inspection and high-speed
    video are also used to evaluate structural collapse.

    A summary star rating shows the protection level indicated by the front
    and side-impact tests together. The summary score for the two tests is
    based on the point scores achieved in each test. Sixteen points can be
    achieved in the frontal test and 18 points in the side tests, for a
    maximum of 34 points. Two of the 18 points available in the side test come
    from the optional pole test, which assesses only one body region-the head.
    Each of the four body regions in the frontal test could receive a maximum
    score of 4 points, for a cumulative score of 16 points. Similarly, the
    four body regions in the sideimpact test could receive a maximum score of
    4 points, for a cumulative score of 16 points. If a vehicle has
    head-protecting side air bags, the manufacturer of the vehicle has the
    option of accepting a side impact pole test, through which 2 bonus points
    can be earned.

    The offset and side-impact scores are added together to produce an overall
    score with a maximum of 32 points. In addition, if a pole side test is
    conducted and shows good head protection, then 2 extra points can be
    earned, and up to 3 more points can be earned for having a safety belt
    reminder system. The points are translated into stars, as shown in table
    3.

    4The A-pillar is the side support for the roof that is in the front of the
    passenger compartment and the B-pillar provides side roof support in the
    center of the passenger compartment just behind the door.

    Appendix V
    Australian New Car Assessment Program

    Table 3: Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Frontal and Side Star Ratings

                                        Minimum score in
                Star Minimum score in                side  Minimum combined score
              rating        offset test       impact test   (including pole test)
                   1                  -                 -                     0.5
                   2                1.5               1.5                     8.5
                                    4.5               4.5                    16.5
                                    8.5               8.5                    24.5
                                   12.5              12.5                   32.5a

    Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Association.

    aTo earn five stars a vehicle must achieve at least 1 point in the
    optional pole test (maximum 2 points). This is an Australia NCAP
    requirement.

    If the injury score for the head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis is 0, then
    there is a high risk of a life-threatening injury. A warning note is added
    to the overall rating to highlight concern that there is a serious risk of
    injury in at least one vulnerable body region. The regions are the head or
    chest for the frontal impact test and the head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis
    for the sideimpact test.

    For the pedestrian test, the scores are based on adult and child-size
    dummy parts (head and lower limbs) used to assess the severity of impact.
    The two different size dummy heads are tested at six areas of the hood,
    and the lower limbs for an adult and child are tested at three areas, for
    a total of 18 impacts tested for each vehicle. Based on the injury
    measurements recorded from the dummy parts, each impact can receive up to
    2 points, and the maximum number of points that can be received is 36, as
    shown in table 4.

                                       Appendix V
                         Australian New Car Assessment Program

    Table 4: Australia NCAP Point System for the Pedestrian Test

                                                                          Maximum
                       Type of test            Impact locations            Points
                         Child head                           6
                         Adult head                           6
                          Upper leg                           3
                          Lower leg                           3
                              Total                          18

    Source: Euro NCAP.

    A separate rating of one to four stars shows the level of pedestrian
    protection. The score reflects the results of the 18 impacts of the dummy
    parts against the specified areas of the bumper and hood. These results
    are summed to provide an overall score. The pedestrian protection star
    rating for a vehicle is based on the number of points received, or a
    maximum of 36 points. The points are translated into stars, as shown in
    table 5.

    Table 5: Scoring Basis for Australia NCAP Pedestrian Rating

                                   Star rating Points

    0

    1

                                        2 10-18

                                        3 19-27

                                        4 28-36

                                   Source: Euro NCAP.

    Sharing Results with the The Australia NCAP's reporting of results to the
    public has evolved over

    Public	time. Initially, the program reported the raw test results for the
    head, chest, and legs. The program also portrayed the risk of injury in
    each area as high (red), medium (yellow), or low (green) and graphically
    represented the risk on an outline of a human figure in each area. When
    the offset frontal crash test was added in 1994, its results were reported
    in the same way. Also in 1994, the program began publishing tables
    comparing the results of the vehicles tested.

    Appendix V
    Australian New Car Assessment Program

    In 1995, the Australia NCAP began summarizing full frontal and offset
    frontal head, chest, and leg test results by using bar charts to represent
    the percentage of risk of a life-threatening injury to drivers and to
    passengers. In 1996, the program began differentiating between upper and
    lower leg injuries, reported the results separately, and adopted the
    Insurance Institute for Highway Safety rating scale of Good, Acceptable,
    Marginal, and Poor. However, the program combined the scores for the full
    frontal driver and passenger tests with the score for the offset frontal
    driver test to arrive at an overall vehicle rating. According to Australia
    NCAP officials, subsequent research with focus groups supported the
    decision because the results indicated that consumers wanted the safety
    information in a simplified, summary form. In November 1999, to align with
    the Euro NCAP, the Australia NCAP first used a five-star system to report
    crash test performance. This system provided an overall rating along with
    a bar chart that enabled consumers to differentiate between vehicles with
    different scores that received the same number of stars.

    Today, the Australia NCAP makes vehicle rating information available on
    its Web site, through press releases, and through a safety brochure.
    Figure 45 shows how the program communicates its overall and pedestrian
    ratings to consumers on the Internet.

    Figure 45: Example of Australian NCAP Rating of a 2004 Mid-size Passenger
                                          Car
              Overall evaluation                Pedestrian rating

    Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Association.

    According to Australia NCAP officials, the Australia NCAP also publishes
    the Crash Test Update, a brochure that provides new crash test results
    about twice a year. In addition to an overall star rating for each type of
    tested vehicle, the brochure presents star ratings with comparative bar
    graphs showing how well vehicles scored within the star levels. Figure 46
    shows the brochure Australia NCAP officials provide for consumers.

    Appendix V
    Australian New Car Assessment Program

              Source: Australian NCAP, Australian Automobile Association.

    Appendix VI

                         European New Car Assessment Programme

    The European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) provides information
    for consumers with an assessment of the safety performance of some new
    vehicles sold in Europe. The program was established and began rating
    vehicles in 1997. Its main purposes are to make comparative safety rating
    information available to consumers for vehicles in the same class and to
    provide incentives for manufacturers to improve the safety of their
    vehicles. The program is operated and funded by a consortium of six
    European governments-Catalonia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden,
    and the United Kingdom-and of various motoring and consumer organizations
    throughout Europe, including the General German Automobile Association
    (Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club e V); German Federal Ministry for
    Traffic, Building and Housing (Bundesministerium fu:r Verkehr, Bau- und
    Wohnungswesen); United Kingdom Department for Transport; Dutch Ministry of
    Transport-Public Works and Water Management; FIA (Federation
    Internationale de l'Automobile) Foundation for the Automobile and Society;
    Catalonia Department of Employment and Industry (Departament de Treball i
    Industria); International Consumer Research and Testing; French Ministry
    of Equipment (Ministere de l'Equipement); Swedish Road Administration; and
    Thatcham. The Euro NCAP crash testing program was modeled from the U.S.
    NCAP (1979) and the Australia NCAP (1992).

    The decision process for Europe involves the use of technical working
    groups and subgroups to examine vehicle safety issues and make
    recommendations for change. Such groups are investigating the feasibility
    of incorporating such safety features as braking and handling, visibility
    and lighting, ergonomics, driver information, and whiplash into Euro NCAP.
    The automobile industry and public safety organizations may be involved in
    providing research or opinions, but the committees are free to make
    decisions they believe appropriate. Generally, decisions are made through
    two working groups, one for primary safety systems and one for secondary
    safety systems, that perform research and analysis. The Euro NCAP allows
    industry representatives to participate in the discussions of the
    subgroups of its two technical working groups. Also, the technical working
    groups and automobile manufacturers engage in direct dialogue in industry
    liaison meetings to address issues such as whiplash.

    Each member of the Euro NCAP is required to sponsor at least one vehicle
    for crash testing each year. The vehicles are normally acquired by the
    Euro NCAP Secretariat by various methods, including purchasing directly
    from dealers and selecting from manufacturers' production lines. The Euro
    NCAP tests vehicles in categories-superminis, family cars, executive cars,

                   Appendix VI European New Car Assessment Programme

    roadsters, off-roaders, and multipurpose vehicles. The following further
    describes (1) the testing conducted, (2) the methods used for developing
    the vehicle crash ratings, and (3) the approaches taken to share the
    safety results with the public.

    Testing Conducted	The Euro NCAP performs three vehicle crash tests, a
    pedestrian protection test, and a child restraint test. The three crash
    tests are the 40 percent offset frontal test, the perpendicular
    side-impact test, and the side-impact pole test. The frontal test involves
    a moving test vehicle traveling at 40 mph (64 km/h) crashing into an
    offset deformable aluminum barrier where 40 percent of the vehicle's width
    engages the barrier on the driver's side. The deformable barrier used is a
    crushable aluminum honeycomb face attached to a solid barrier. The
    deformable structure is designed to replicate the essential
    characteristics of the front end of another car. Two instrumented 50th
    percentile Hybrid III dummies (each weighing about 194 pounds) are used to
    collect data during the crash and are placed in the front driver's and
    front passenger seats.

    In the side-impact test, a moving trolley with a deformable barrier is
    towed at about 31 mph (50 km/h) into a stationary test vehicle at a 90
    degree angle centered on the driver seating position. This test simulates
    a side-impact collision. The moving deformable barrier has a mass of 2,095
    pounds (950 kg) compared with 3,015 pounds (1,367 kg) for the U.S.
    barrier. The European barrier's face is smaller and much softer than the
    face of the barrier used in the U.S. NCAP. However, Euro NCAP officials
    said that because the barrier strikes a vehicle at a 90 degree angle,
    their side-impact test is more aggressive than NHTSA's side-impact test.
    One instrumented 50th percentile EuroSID-II dummy (weighing about 176
    pounds) is used to collect data during the crash and is placed in the
    front driver seat.

    The pole side-impact test consists of a vehicle placed on a platform and
    propelled at 18 mph (29 km/h) into a cylindrical pole. The pole has a
    diameter of 10 inches (254 mm), and its vertical axis is aligned with the
    front seat dummy's head. One instrumented 50th percentile EuroSID-II dummy
    is used to collect data during the crash and is placed in the front
    driver's seat.

    The pedestrian protection test evaluates the impact of dummy parts against
    the bumper, hood, and windshield areas of a vehicle. Adult and child-size
    dummy parts are propelled at specified areas of the hood and front bumper
    of a vehicle to simulate a 25 mph (40 km/h) car-to-pedestrian collision.
    The

                   Appendix VI European New Car Assessment Programme

    test simulates the impact of a lower leg against a bumper, a thigh against
    the lower edge of the hood, and adult and child heads against the upper
    portion of the hood.

    The child protection test evaluates a vehicle's ability to protect
    children by assessing the performance of the vehicle's child restraint
    system in front and side-impact tests. During these tests, two child-size
    dummies are placed in the manufacturer's recommended child restraints in
    the rear seat of a vehicle. In the frontal test, a dummy with the weight
    and size of an 18month-old child (about 24 pounds) is placed behind the
    passenger, and a dummy with the weight and size of a 3-year-old child
    (about 33 pounds) is placed behind the driver. In the side-impact test,
    the positions of the two dummies are reversed.

    Scoring Tests	The Euro NCAP bases its assessment of crashworthiness on
    three types of observations made during or after a crash test: (1) dummy
    measurements of forces to the body, used to assess injuries; (2) five
    measurements of vehicle deformation, used to assess the vehicle's
    structural performance; and (3) post-crash inspection data for six areas,
    which are termed "modifiers" because problems in any one of them may
    result in a penalty that modifies the vehicle's assessment score.

    In the offset frontal crash test, two instrumented Hybrid III dummies are
    positioned in the front driver's seat and front passenger seat to measure
    injuries to four regions of the body: (1) head and neck; (2) chest; (3)
    knee, femur, and pelvis; and (4) legs and feet. The five structural
    measurements provide vehicle deformation data, indicating the amount and
    pattern of intrusion into the occupant compartment. The post-crash
    inspection provides information about air bag stability, steering column
    movement, Apillar movement, structural integrity, hazardous structures in
    the knee impact area, and brake pedal movement. The dummy measurements and
    the vehicle deformation data are combined to generate a score-up to four
    points-for each body region. This score may be modified by findings from
    the post-crash inspection.

    In the side-impact and pole tests, injury measurements are recorded on one
    EuroSID-II dummy positioned in the front driver's seat. These measurements
    provide data for assessing injuries to four body regions: the head, ribs,
    abdomen (chest or thorax), and pelvis. No structural or postcrash
    inspection data are gathered during these tests. Thus, the score for each
    body region is based on the dummy measurements alone.

    Appendix VI European New Car Assessment Programme

    In the pedestrian test, readings taken from the adult and child-size dummy
    parts (head and lower limbs) are used to assess the risk of injury. The
    two different size dummy heads are tested at six different areas of the
    hood, and the lower limbs are tested at three areas, for a total of 18
    impacts tested for each vehicle. Depending on the injury measurements
    recorded from the dummy parts, each impact can receive up to 2 points, and
    the maximum number of points that can be received is 36 points. See table
    6.

    Table 6: Euro NCAP Pedestrian Test Assessment Criteria

                                                                          Maximum
                       Type of test      Impact locations                  points
                         Child head                           6
                         Adult head                           6
                          Upper leg                           3
                          Lower leg                           3
                              Total                          18

    Source: Euro NCAP.

    The child protection test consists of three assessments that are based on
    (1) dummy measurements and dynamic evaluations, (2) marking requirements
    for child restraint systems, and (3) a vehicle-based assessment. Points
    reflect the results of the three assessments. The first assessment uses
    dummy measurements taken from the two child dummies in the frontal and
    side tests, together with dynamic evaluations of ejection from the child
    restraint system and head contact within the vehicle. Another assessment
    evaluates whether the markings on the child restraint fully comply with
    the test requirements. The final assessment evaluates how easily the child
    restraint system can be used inside the vehicle.

    A combined star rating is used to show the protection level achieved in
    the offset frontal and side impact tests together. The score for this
    rating is the sum of the scores achieved in these two tests-up to 16
    points for the frontal test and up to 18 points for the side test, for a
    maximum of 34 points. For both tests, each of four body regions can
    receive up to 4 points, for a cumulative score of 16 points per test, and
    for the side test, 2 additional points can come from an optional pole
    test, which assesses protection for only one body region-the head. The
    pole side-impact test is an option for the manufacturer of a vehicle that
    has head-protecting side air

    Appendix VI European New Car Assessment Programme

    bags. Finally, up to 3 more points can be earned for having a safety belt
    reminder system. The points are translated into stars, as shown in table
    7.

    Table 7: Euro NCAP Front and Side-Impact Star Rating System

                                   Star rating Points

    1-8

    9-16

    17-24

    25-32

    33-40

    Source: Euro NCAP.

    If the crash tests demonstrate a high risk of a life-threatening injury,
    indicated by an injury score of 0 for the head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis,
    then a warning note is added to the overall rating. Euro NCAP uses a
    "struck star" to convey this warning. When the star is struck through, it
    highlights concern that there is a serious risk of injury in at least one
    vulnerable body region. These concerns are based on data from the offset
    frontal test for the head or chest and from the side-impact test for the
    head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis. A star cannot be struck because of
    findings from post-crash inspections showing the effects of modifiers.

    Euro NCAP provides a separate rating of one to four stars to show the
    level of pedestrian protection. The score for this rating sums the results
    of the 18 impact tests of dummy parts propelled into the specified areas
    of the bumper and hood. A vehicle can earn up to 2 points for each test,
    for a maximum of 36 points. The points are translated into stars, as shown
    in table 8.

                   Appendix VI European New Car Assessment Programme

    Table 8: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Pedestrian Ratings

                                   Star rating Points

    0

    1

                                        2 10-18

                                        3 19-27

                                        4 28-36

    Source: Euro NCAP.

    Euro NCAP also provides a separate rating of one to five stars to show the
    level of child protection. Currently, the tests on which this rating is
    based can produce a maximum of 49 points, but the rating scale allows
    further points to be awarded for future developments in child protection.
    Table 9 shows how the points are translated into stars.

    Table 9: Scoring Basis for Euro NCAP Child Protection Star Ratings

                                   Star rating Points

    0

    1

                                        2 13-24

                                        3 25-36

                                        4 37-48

                                        5 49-60

                                   Source: Euro NCAP.

    Sharing Results with the Public

    Vehicle rating information is available on the Euro NCAP Web site, through
    press releases, and through popular consumer magazines. Figure 47 shows
    the ratings that the program makes available to consumers on the
    Internet-a front and side-impact rating, a pedestrian protection rating,
    and a child restraint protection rating. The pedestrian protection rating
    is intended to encourage manufacturers to start designing for pedestrian
    protection. The child restraint protection rating is based on a vehicle's
    performance using the child seats recommended by that vehicle's
    manufacturer. Specifically, the rating depends on the fitting instructions
    for the child seats, the car's ability to accommodate the seats safely,
    and the seats' performance in front and side impact tests.

    Appendix VI European New Car Assessment Programme

    Source: Euro NCAP.

    In addition to star ratings, the Euro NCAP uses color-coded dummy injury
    diagrams to show how specific body regions performed in the frontal, side,
    and pole crash tests. The color-codes are: Good (green), Adequate
    (yellow), Marginal (orange), Weak (red), and Poor (brown). The colored
    injury diagrams display the risk of injury to the various body regions, as
    shown in figure 48.

    Source: Euro NCAP.

    The Euro NCAP divides its testing into two phases and releases the results
    twice a year, in November and June. The results are posted on the
    program's Web site, issued in press releases, and published by What Car?
    (a British car magazine), Which? Car (a magazine owned and produced by
    British consumer associations), and the General German Automobile

    Appendix VI European New Car Assessment Programme

    Association (ADAC) magazine. Other consumer magazines in Europe provide
    additional crash test information.

    Appendix VII

                            Japan New Car Assessment Program

    The National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims' Aid (NASVA)
    conducts the Japan NCAP and is funded by the government through the
    Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transportation. According to NASVA
    officials, the Automobile Assessment Committee, made up of 12 members
    appointed by the ministry, oversees the program. The committee includes
    four working groups, each focusing on specific areas: crash tests, tests
    of active safety systems such as brakes, pedestrian tests, and tests of
    child restraint systems. NASVA officials conduct research in these areas
    and propose changes to the program that must be approved by the committee.
    NASVA officials said that the Japan NCAP is funded through appropriations
    from the Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance that every car owner
    must pay.

    The Japan NCAP began testing vehicles in 1995, starting with a full
    frontal collision test. The program added the side-impact test in 1999 and
    the offset frontal test in 2000. Vehicles are selected for testing on the
    basis of sales. By 2004, the program had evaluated 79 vehicles
    representing over 80 percent of those that were on the market at that
    time. Ratings for 60 of these vehicles were carried over from previous
    years' testing, and ratings for 19 vehicles were based on tests performed
    in 2003. Testing is conducted at the Japan Auto Research Institute under
    the control and supervision of NCAP officials. The institute crash tests
    cars, minivans, and SUVs and performs other NCAP tests, such as the brake
    and pedestrian tests. The research laboratory has one track for conducting
    frontal and side-impact tests. In these tests, either the vehicle is towed
    to strike the barrier, or, in side-impact tests, the barrier is moved to
    strike the vehicle. In 2005, the institute plans to open a new test
    facility with multiple tracks that will enable researchers to conduct
    vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests at various angles.

    Testing Conducted	The Japan NCAP performs a variety of safety tests and
    rates vehicles according to the results. It conducts three types of crash
    tests-a full frontal test, an offset frontal test, and a perpendicular
    side-impact test. In addition, it performs a braking test, which measures
    the performance of an active safety system that enables a driver to avoid
    a crash. The program further assesses how easily doors are opened and
    occupants are removed after a crash and how well vehicles perform if they
    strike pedestrians. The program also evaluates how well child safety seats
    perform.

    Appendix VII
    Japan New Car Assessment Program

    The Japan NCAP is the only program that conducts both the full frontal and
    the offset frontal crash tests. Together, the two tests assess both the
    potential for injuries caused by intrusion and the effectiveness of the
    vehicle's restraint system. The full frontal test is performed by towing a
    vehicle to collide with a rigid barrier at 55 km/h (about 34 mph). This
    test simulates a head-on collision between two vehicles of the same size
    traveling at the same speed. The offset frontal test involves towing a
    vehicle into a deformable barrier that represents the front end of another
    vehicle and simulates a head-on collision of two vehicles traveling at 40
    mph. In this test, only a portion of the front end (40 percent) engages
    the barrier, and the impact on the vehicle body is greater than the full
    frontal test because much of the crash energy is distributed to one side
    of the vehicle. Thus, there is the possibility of substantial vehicle
    deformation, which makes this test suitable for evaluating injuries caused
    to occupants by intrusion into the occupant compartment. The program uses
    the Hybrid III dummy that represents a man of about 5 feet 10 inches tall
    and weighing about 185 pounds.

    The side-impact test propels a moveable deformable barrier weighing about
    2,090 pounds into the driver's and passenger's side of the vehicle,
    simulating a perpendicular collision at 55 km/h (about 34 mph). The
    barrier is shaped like the front end of a car, and because it is not
    rigid, its performance is intended to simulate a vehicle's response in an
    actual collision. A EuroSID-I dummy is placed in the driver's seat. This
    dummy is the same height as the Hybrid III dummy but weighs about 20
    pounds less. The EuroSID-I dummy was designed to measure the risk of
    injury to the head, chest, abdomen, and pelvis.

    The Japan NCAP conducts a braking performance test that measures how far a
    vehicle travels before it stops and how stable it is at the time of
    braking when it is stopped abruptly while traveling at about 62 mph. The
    braking test is a test of an active safety system because it enables the
    driver to avoid a crash. The test is performed under wet and dry road
    conditions for a vehicle with a driver and a weight on the front passenger
    seat. To ensure consistent testing, Japan NCAP officials said, the dry
    road surface temperature must be 95.0 degrees plus or minus 18.0 degrees
    Fahrenheit and the wet road surface temperature must be 80.6 degrees plus
    or minus 9.0 degrees Fahrenheit because the temperature of the road
    surface affects the distance it takes to stop the vehicle. Japan NCAP
    officials also said that all braking tests must be performed at the same
    location because road surfaces vary and surface differences could affect
    test results. Professional drivers conduct the tests, and the speed of the
    vehicle and force with which

                                      Appendix VII
                            Japan New Car Assessment Program

    the drivers depress the brake pedal are monitored electronically to ensure
    consistency. Three braking tests are conducted to be sure that the result
    is not due to a flaw in the testing process. Figure 49 illustrates the
    braking test.

    Source: Copyright (c) 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and
    Victims' Aid. All rights reserved.

    In addition, the Japan NCAP assesses and scores the ease with which doors
    can be opened and the dummies removed after a crash test. The purpose of
    the accessibility assessment is to rate how easily emergency responders
    can assist injured persons. The rating is based on whether the doors can
    be opened with one hand, two hands, or whether tools are needed to open
    the doors.

    The pedestrian test measures the effect of a pedestrian being hit by a
    vehicle traveling at about 22 mph if the pedestrian's head strikes part of
    the hood or windshield. This test was initiated because pedestrian
    fatalities represent a high percentage of total vehicle fatalities in
    Japan. Dummies modeling the head of an adult or a child (head impactor)
    are projected

    Appendix VII
    Japan New Car Assessment Program

    toward the car hood from a testing machine. The force received by the head
    impactor is measured and then evaluated using a head injury criterion. The
    test is conducted on multiple points on each car, and the impact angles
    differ according to the shape of the front part of three types of
    vehicles-sedan, SUV, and van. Figure 50 illustrates how the test is
    performed.

    Source: Copyright (c) 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and
    Victims' Aid. All rights reserved.

    Note: The distance between the ground and where the pedestrian's head hits
    the car in crashes is called the wrap-around distance, which is measured
    according to the length of that area. The location of the impact area for
    adult's and children's heads is based on the data from actual crash data.

    The pedestrian test is conducted on vehicles with three different body
    types, as shown in table 10.

    Table 10: Japan NCAP Vehicle Types Used for Pedestrian Test

                                Vehicle type Definition

    Sedan With the hood leading edge height less than 835 mm

    SUV With the hood leading edge height more than 835 mm

    Van With the hood angle more than 30 degrees

    Source: Japan NCAP, National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victims'
    Aid.

                                      Appendix VII
                            Japan New Car Assessment Program

    The Japan NCAP also assesses the safety performance of child seats in a
    car crash and the ease of using the seats. Child seats are installed in
    the rear passenger seats of a test vehicle stripped down to its body
    frame. The test uses dummies to represent a 9-month-old child and a
    3-year-old child. The test vehicle is placed on a sled and subjected to a
    shock identical to the test speed used in the full frontal crash test.

    Scoring Tests 	The Japan NCAP measures injuries to the head, neck, chest,
    and upper (femur) and lower (tibia) legs for both the full frontal and
    offset frontal crash tests. Points vary by body region, from 2 points for
    upper and lower leg injuries to 4 points for head, neck, or chest
    injuries, according to the extent of injuries as measured by crash test
    dummies. Vehicle deformation is measured after the crash test, and if
    certain limits are exceeded, a point is deducted from the score for one
    body area, according to where the deformation occurred. In addition,
    weighting factors are assigned according to the frequency of injuries to
    these body areas in vehicle crashes. The weighted points for each body
    area are then combined to arrive at separate total point scores for the
    driver and the passenger in full frontal and offset frontal crash tests.
    The maximum score that a vehicle can achieve is 12 points because of the
    way the injuries are weighted.

    For the side-impact crash test, the Japan NCAP measures injuries to the
    driver's head, chest, abdomen, and pelvis.1 Four points are assigned for
    each body area and then weighted according to the incidence of injuries in
    this type of accident, with lesser weights assigned to the abdomen and
    pelvis than to the head and chest. Again, the maximum score that a vehicle
    can achieve is 12 points, because of the way injuries to the driver are
    weighted.

    The Japan NCAP is the only program that adjusts its test results by
    weighting the injury scores according to historical crash data. NCAP
    officials said they can do this because the police are well trained to
    investigate every accident and provide thorough reports to the government.

    For the pedestrian test, a series of head injury scores is used to assign
    injury probability levels from 5 (the best) to 1 (the worst). The results
    are then combined to arrive at an overall score. According to NCAP
    officials,

    1The side-impact crash test can also be performed on the passenger side of
    the vehicle, but the rating applies to only one occupant position.

                                      Appendix VII
                            Japan New Car Assessment Program

    vehicles with hoods that are more flexible and compress upon impact can
    receive better scores than those that are rigid and leave no room between
    the hood and the engine for the impact to be absorbed.

    Child seats are evaluated according to their performance in a collision
    and their ease of use. For the collision test, overall ratings of
    Excellent, Good, Normal, and Not Recommended are assigned. The ratings are
    primarily based on the head and chest injury scores taken from the dummies
    used in the test. Five child seat specialists assessed the ease of
    installation, the ease of understanding the instructions, the product
    warning labels and markings to aid in installation, the structural design,
    and the ease of securing the child in the seat. For each area, the
    specialists assigned points, from 5 (the best) to 1 (the worst). The
    scores given by the specialists were averaged and reported separately for
    each area.

    Sharing Results with the Public

    Initially, the Japan NCAP used a four-letter system to rate vehicles'
    crashworthiness, in which "A" reflected the highest scores for performance
    and "D" reflected the lowest scores. As vehicles' performance improved,
    more and more vehicles achieved an "A" rating. To help consumers better
    differentiate vehicles' performance, NCAP officials expanded the range of
    ratings to include AA and AAA. This same scale was later converted to six
    stars. Many vehicles have achieved a five-star rating, and some have
    received a six-star rating for occupant protection. In addition to the
    star ratings, the Japan NCAP reports the percentage of possible points
    that each vehicle received and provides a bar chart indicating how well
    the vehicles performed in these tests.

    Figure 51 shows how the Japan NCAP communicates its ratings to consumers
    as two overall ratings-one for the driver's seat and one for the
    passenger's seat. The overall safety rating for the driver's seat combines
    the results of the two frontal crash tests (full and offset) and the
    side-impact test. The overall safety rating for the passenger's seat
    includes the results of the full frontal and offset frontal tests. The
    Japan NCAP also provides consumers with star ratings by type of test for
    the driver's and passenger's seats and makes the detailed test information
    available to consumers for each crash test, as shown in figure 52.
    Consumers are also provided with ratings on how difficult it was to open
    the door after the test (openability) and how difficult it was to retrieve
    the dummy from the vehicle after the crash test (rescueability), as shown
    in figure 53 and 54 respectively. Although not shown as part of the
    crashworthiness rating, the ratings for the pedestrian tests are provided,
    as well as the ratings for the child

                                      Appendix VII
                            Japan New Car Assessment Program

    restraint seats (Excellent, Good, Normal, and Not Recommended).
    Furthermore, the Japan NCAP has provided consumers with comparative
    information on vehicles' braking capability on wet and dry pavements.

    Source: Copyright (c) 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and
    Victims' Aid. All rights reserved.

    Source: Copyright (c) 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and
    Victims' Aid. All rights reserved.

    Appendix VII
    Japan New Car Assessment Program

    Source: Copyright (c) 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and
    Victims' Aid. All rights reserved.

    aAt times, a vehicle may turn sideways (roll over) after a side impact.
    This test is performed to measure how well passengers are protected when a
    vehicle is hit while stopped; it is not intended to evaluate the stability
    of the vehicle while it is in motion.

    Source: Copyright (c) 2005 National Agency for Automotive Safety and
    Victims' Aid. All rights reserved

    The Japan NCAP publicizes ratings through the NASVA Web site and publishes
    a brochure that contains summary information on vehicle ratings. In
    addition to the summary ratings, detailed information for each vehicle
    tested is posted on the Web site and published in a book by NASVA every
    year. The Japan Automobile Federation also publishes NCAP vehicle

    Appendix VII
    Japan New Car Assessment Program

    ratings in its magazine and posts the information on its Web site.
    According to Japan NCAP officials, vehicle ratings and new tests under the
    program are further publicized in television specials. According to NASVA
    officials, the public response was very positive after these specials
    because the number of hits to NASVA Web site increased by 15 to 20 percent
    in the few days after each broadcast.

    Appendix VIII

                     Different Types of Tests Used by the Programs

    Table 11: Description of Different Types of Tests Used by the Programs Test type
                     Description of test Assessment Considerations

    Frontal tests

    The test vehicle's entire front The test assesses the ability Test results
    cannot be
    end is crashed into a fixed rigid of vehicle restraint systems, compared
    between vehicles
    barrier at 35 miles per hour such as safety belts and air of different
    weight classes.
    (mph), which is equivalent to a bags, to restrain occupants.
    head-on collision between two
    similar size vehicles, each The test maximizes the
    moving at 35 mph. energy absorbed by the front

    of the vehicle so that the Only the U.S. NCAP and Japan occupant
    compartment is currently conduct this test.a more likely to remain intact.

    The test vehicle is the equivalent of two vehicles of the same weight
    crashing into each other. The vehicle is crashed into a deformable barrier
    at 40 mph where approximately 40 percent of the vehicle's width makes
    contact with the barrier.

    Australia, Europe, Japan, and the Insurance Institute currently conduct
    this test.

    The test assesses a vehicle's structural integrity and its ability to
    manage the energy generated in the crash entirely on the driver's side of
    the vehicle.

    This type of crash forces a smaller area of the vehicle's structure to
    absorb the energy from the crash.

    Test results cannot be compared between vehicles of different weight
    classes.

    Side tests

              The test vehicle is      The test represents an Test results can be
                      struck by a
                moving deformable intersection-type           compared across
                       barrier at collision.                  vehicle
            38.5 mph at an angle.                                  weight classes
                         Both the                                         because
                  barrier and the The barrier striking the    each vehicle is
                 driver's side of test                        struck by a
                  the vehicle are    vehicle is shaped like a barrier of the same
                parallel, so that                                        size and
           the entire face of the passenger car and is about              weight.
                          barrier
          impacts the side of the        the size of a medium
                         vehicle.
                                      passenger car, weighing   The test does not
                                                                       assess the
               Only the U.S. NCAP               3,015 pounds.       risks of head
                        currently                                injury from side
              conducts this test.                             impacts from
                                                              vehicles like
                                                                SUVs and pickups.

                                     Appendix VIII
                          Different Types of Tests Used by the
                                        Programs

                             (Continued From Previous Page)

                Test type Description of test Assessment Considerations

    The test vehicle is struck by a The test represents a 90 Test results can
    be moving deformable barrier degree intersection-type compared across
    vehicle traveling at about 31 mph (50 collision. weight classes because
    km/h) at a 90 degree angle each vehicle is struck by a centered on the
    driver side The barrier that strikes the barrier of the same size and
    seating position. test vehicle weighs 2,095 weight.

    pounds (950 kg) and has a Australia, Europe, and Japan front end shaped to
    simulate currently conduct this test.b the typical front end of a

    passenger car.

    The test vehicle is struck by a moving deformable barrier traveling at 31
    mph (50 km/h) perpendicular impact into the driver side of a passenger
    vehicle.

    The Insurance Institute currently conducts this test.

    The test represents a 90 degree intersection-type collision.

    The moving deformable barrier that strikes the test vehicle weighs about
    3,300 pounds (1,500 kg), is higher than other barriers with a front end
    shaped to simulate the typical front end of a pickup or SUV.

    Test results can be compared across vehicle weight classes because each
    vehicle is struck by a barrier of the same size and weight.

    The test was designed to encourage automakers to provide side-impact head
    protection by installing air curtain bags that extend low enough to
    protect smaller occupants in front and rear seats.

    The test vehicle is placed on a The test represents a side-The side-impact
    test is platform and propelled at 29 impact collision involving a
    demanding on vehicles' km/h (about 18 miles per hour) narrow object such
    as a tree structures, and heavy into a stationary cylindrical pole or
    pole. vehicles have to cope with producing a side-impact crash higher
    loads than lighter on the driver's door. The diameter of the pole is
    vehicles.

    10 inches (254 mm) and Australia and Europe currently aligned with the
    front conduct this test. occupant's head.

                                     Appendix VIII
                          Different Types of Tests Used by the
                                        Programs

                             (Continued From Previous Page)

                Test type Description of test Assessment Considerations

    Other tests

    The test vehicle is subjected to a series of left/right tests and
    right/left tests at different speeds and steering wheel angles.The first
    run of tests is conducted at 35 mph, with each subsequent run conducted at
    about 40 mph, 45 mph, 47.5 mph, and 50 mph, until the vehicle "tips up"
    (fails) or attains a speed of 50 mph on the last run of each test without
    tipping up (pass).

    Only the U.S. NCAP currently conducts this test.

    The dynamic test represents an untripped rollover by simulating a
    high-speed collision-avoidance maneuver.

    The Static Stability Factor is a measurement used to determine the
    top-heaviness of a vehicle, accounting for situations of potential tripped
    rollovers such as when a vehicle strikes a curb.

    Rollovers where the vehicle is not tripped account for less than 5 percent
    of all rollover crashes.

    Adult and child-size dummy The test is used to assess This test evaluates
    the front
    parts (such as heads) are the risk to pedestrians if end design of
    vehicles and
    projected at specified areas of a struck by the front of a car. the effect
    on pedestrian
    test vehicle front end to replicate injuries.
    a car colliding with a pedestrian.

    Australia, Europe, and Japan
    currently conduct this test.

    Euro NCAP tests child restraints The Euro NCAP test is used The Euro NCAP
    test by placing child-size dummies in to evaluate child protection
    evaluates the performance child seats during frontal and focusing on the
    interaction of of a car seat during a front or side crash tests. a
    vehicle's child restraint side collision.

    system and a child seat. The Japan NCAP test evaluates Japan NCAP tests
    child child seats by placing child-size The Japan NCAP test restraint
    systems dummies in child seats using a evaluates the ease of independent
    of vehicle test sled instead of actual correctly using the child
    performance in a simulated collisions. seats. frontal crash and evaluates

    the ease of use.

    aThe Japan NCAP full frontal test is performed at 55 km/h (about 34 mph).
    bThe Japan NCAP perpendicular side test is performed at 55 km/h (about 34
    mph).

    Appendix IX

                         GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contacts	JayEtta Hecker, (202) 512-2834 Glen Trochelman, (312)
    220-7729

    Acknowledgments	In addition to those named above, Vashun Cole, Michelle
    Dresben, Colin Fallon, Kathleen Gilhooly, Doug Manor, Terry Richardson,
    Beverly Ross, Brian Sells, Jena Sinkfield, Stacey Thompson, and Frank
    Taliaferro made key contributions to this report.

    GAO's Mission	The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
    and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
    its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
    and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
    examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
    and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
    Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
    commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
    accountability, integrity, and reliability.

    Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
    documents at no cost

    is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
    Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
    Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
    every afternoon, go to

    www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

    Order by Mail or Phone	The first copy of each printed report is free.
    Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
    to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
    Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
    percent. Orders should be sent to:

    U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
    512-6061

    To Report Fraud, Contact:
    Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.govFederal Programs Automated answering system: (800)
    424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Congressional 	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202)
    512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

    Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202)
    512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548
    *** End of document. ***